Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my esteemed colleague from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, in introducing the Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007.

As most of us in this Chamber know, elemental mercury is a poisonous neurotoxin that can cause serious disability or death if ingested. Unfortunately, many people in the United States, and many millions more worldwide, do indeed ingest mercury--unintentionally, however, as a result of industrial emissions or practices, or poor waste management and storage techniques. When mercury enters into the environment, it often shows up in plants and animals, and that means a major source of mercury ingestion for humans comes as a result of eating certain types of fish. That, in turn, causes serious developmental problems in half a million children in our country, and similar health problems in adults, especially women at childbearing age.

Last year, an investigative report published in the Chicago Tribune outlined the extent of mercury contamination in fish. After concluding that the fish sampling efforts conducted by the Federal Government were limited and outdated, the Tribune conducted its own sampling, and the results showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by consumers in the Chicago region--higher levels than had been documented by the Federal Government. Mercury was found in both freshwater and saltwater species--tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and walleye, to name a few examples. The Tribune also reported on how existing programs at the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in fish.

For those of us who like fish, it causes us to pause when we first learn of the range of species with high mercury levels. For pregnant women and other at-risk groups, however, this doesn't just cause pause, it creates serious concerns about health consequences. Meanwhile, experts tell us that fish is an excellent source of critical nutrients and other compounds indispensable for good health. More of us should eat more fish.

So the real long-term solution is not to eat less fish, or to criticize those who commercially provide us with fish as food. It's not about issuing advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting placards at the supermarket, or creating inspection bureaucracies, or collecting statistics. If we're serious about eliminating mercury from fish, we need to reduce mercury in the environment.

Half of mercury settles where it is emitted, and the other half gets transported around the globe where we lose track of it, and it winds up in oceans, lakes, and rivers nowhere near mercury sources. From there, up it goes, through the food chain. If mercury is both local, and global, then the solution is not up to one state, or one nation, but up to all states and nations. The bill we introduce today was crafted based on that premise.

The Mercury Market Minimization Act, or M3 Act, establishes a ban on U.S. exports of mercury by the year 2010. Such a ban, when coupled with goal of the European Union to ban mercury exports by 2011, and the insufficient capacity in the world's mercury mines to respond, will result in a tightening of the global supply of commercially available elemental mercury in sufficient quantities that developing nations that still use mercury will be compelled to switch to the affordable alternatives that are already widespread in industrialized nations.

The M3 Act also requires those Federal agencies that now hold mercury in stockpiles to keep that mercury. Right now, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense, possess tons of mercury left over from various operations over the years. While it is the policy of these agencies to keep this mercury--not to sell it, not to transfer it, not to release it from their possession--it is not the law. The M3 act codifies these policies. In December of 2006, it was widely understood that the Department of Energy was considering the sale of its mercury stockpiles. After various inquiries into the matter, the Department of Energy ultimately announced that it would not sell its stockpiles. That underscores why a prohibition of stockpile sales must be enacted into law by the M3 act if we are to be assured that mercury remains safely stored, away from the environment, and not sold overseas to places where tracking and emissions and waste disposal laws may be inadequate.

Finally, the M3 Act calls for the creation of a committee to explore and make recommendations on the issues associated with the development of a permanent repository of mercury collected as a result of an export prohibition. Mercury is not like spent nuclear fuel, or other substances that may create community concerns, in that when mercury is stored in stainless steel containers in refrigeration, it remains benign. Every community must be provided the opportunity to evaluate for themselves if and when mercury is stored nearby in secure and stable storage. I do believe, however, that when mercury is safely and permanently stored, it means less microscopic mercury on one's dinner plate, less mercury in our kids' tuna fish sandwiches, and less mercury in the air we breathe.

Last month, a United States delegation, led by the State Department, participated in an international meeting in Kenya, sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Programme, where world representative discussed how to reduce mercury pollution. Two years ago, the U.S. Government could have taken a bolder stance, and did not. This time, with the decision of the E.U. to ban mercury exports, the United States had an opportunity to partner with its allies to eliminate a major part of worldwide elemental mercury contamination. Again, the State Department did not.

It is not often that policy options, such as this, might be considered ``low-hanging fruit''--in that a small act of international leadership by the United States government could have far reaching benefits for the health of our kids, as well as millions of low-income hardworking artisanal gold miners whom we will never meet. But the United States, so far, has not acted. This bill, the M3 bill, is designed to change that course and the mark the beginning of the end of a global market of an outdated and obsolete poison. I hope my colleagues will support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise, first, to offer strong words of support for the statement that was just offered by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I also rise today to speak in support of the Iraq resolution the Senate will consider tomorrow.

The news from Iraq is very bad. Last week, a suicide bomber stood outside a bookstore and killed 20 people. Other attacks killed 118 Shia pilgrims. On Sunday, a car bomb went off in central Baghdad, and more than 30 people died. The road from the airport into Baghdad is littered with smoldering debris, craters from improvised explosive devices, and the memories of our sons and daughters.

The civil war in Iraq rages on. The insurgents have started to change their tactics. They hide in buildings and along the streets and wait for our helicopters. They have shot down at least 8 U.S. helicopters in the last month. More of our soldiers are dying or coming home with their bodies broken and their nerves shattered to a VA system completely unprepared for what they need to rebuild their lives.

It is not enough for the President to tell us victory in this war is simply a matter of American resolve. The American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort--money they know could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland security and our competitive standing as a nation. The failure has not been a failure of resolve. That is not what has led us into chaos. It has been a failure of strategy, and it is time that the strategy change. There is no military solution to the civil war that rages on in Iraq, and it is time for us to redeploy so that a political solution becomes possible.

The news from Iraq is very bad, and it has been that way for at least 4 years. We all wish the land the President and the Vice President speak of exists. We wish there were an Iraq where the insurgency was in its last throes, where the people work with security, where children play outside, where a vibrant new democracy lights up the nighttime sky. We wish for those things, but there is no alternative reality to what we see and read about in the news, to what we have experienced these long 4 years.

I repeat, there is no military solution to this war. At this point, no amount of soldiers can solve the grievances at the heart of someone else's civil war. The Iraqi people--Shia, Sunni, and Kurd--must come to the table and reach a political settlement themselves. If they want peace, they must do the hard work necessary to achieve it.

Our failed strategy in Iraq has strengthened Iran's strategic position, reduced U.S. credibility and influence around the world, and placed Israel and other nations in the region that are friendly to the United States in greater

peril. These are not signs of a well-laid plan. It is time for a profound change.

This is what we are trying to do here today. We are saying it is time to start making plans to redeploy our troops so they can focus on the wider struggle against terrorism, win the war in Afghanistan, strengthen our position in the Middle East, and pressure the Iraqis to reach a political settlement. Even if this effort falls short, we will continue to try to accomplish what the American people asked for last November.

I am glad to see, though, that this new effort is gaining consensus. I commend Senator Reid for his efforts. He took the time to listen to so many of us from both Chambers of Congress to help develop this plan.

The decision in particular to again begin a phased redeployment, with the goal of redeploying all our combat forces by March 30, 2008, is the right step. It is a measure the Iraq Study Group spoke of, an idea I borrowed from them, an idea that, in a bill I introduced, now has more than 60 cosponsors from the House and Senate and from both sides of the aisle. They have supported this plan since I announced a similar plan in January.

The decision to allow some U.S. forces to remain in Iraq with a clear mission to protect U.S. and coalition personnel, conduct counterterrorism operations, and to train and equip Iraqi forces is a smart decision. President al-Maliki spoke at a conference and warned that the violence in Iraq could spread throughout the region if it goes unchecked. By maintaining a strong presence in Iraq and the Middle East, as both my bill and the leadership bill does, we can ensure that the chaos does not spread.

I should also add that the decision to begin this phased redeployment within 120 days is a practical one. Our military options have been exhausted. It is time to seek a political solution to this war, and with this decision we send a clear signal to the parties involved that they need to arrive at an accommodation.

While I strongly believe this war never should have been authorized, I believe we must be as careful in ending the war as we were careless getting in. While I prefer my approach as reflected in my bill, I believe this resolution does begin to point U.S. policy and Iraq in the right direction. An end to the war and achieving a political solution to Iraq's civil war will not happen unless we demand it. Peace with stability does not just happen because we wish for it.

It comes when we never give in and never give up and never tire of working toward a life on Earth worthy of our human dignity. The decisions that have been made have led us to this crossroad, in a moment of great peril.

We have a choice. We can continue down the road that has weakened our credibility and damaged our strategic interests in the region or we can turn toward the future. The road will not be smooth. I have to say there will be risks with any approach, but this approach is our last best hope to end this war so we can begin to bring our troops home and begin the hard work of securing our country and our world from the threats we face.

The President has said he will continue down the road toward more troops and more of the same failed policies. The President sought and won authorization from Congress to wage this war from the start. But he is now dismissing and ignoring the will of the American people who are tired of years of watching the human and financial tolls mount.

The news from Iraq is very bad, but it can change if we in this Chamber say ``enough.'' Let this day be the day we begin the painful and difficult work of moving from the crossroad. Let this day be the day we begin pulling toward the future with a responsible conclusion to this painful chapter in our Nation's history. Let this be the day when we finally send a message that is so clear and so emphatic that it cannot be ignored.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Oklahoma that would sunset the provisions of this bill after 5 years.

In general, I think this is a very good bill. But I have serious reservations about the method by which this bill allocates State homeland security grants.

Last week, I came to the floor to offer an amendment to make this funding allocation more based on risk. My amendment was an attempt to meet the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that ``[h]omeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities [and] federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing.''

That is why my amendment sought to send the most dollars to those areas at the greatest risk of an attack. As compared to the funding formula in the underlying bill, my amendment would have better protected our borders, our ports, our railroads, our subways, our chemical plants, our nuclear power plants, our food supply, and our firefighters, police officers and EMTs.

Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated, as was a similar amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Cornyn. I think this was an unfortunate mistake by the Senate, and I am hopeful that this mistake will be corrected in conference.

If the funding formula is not fixed, however, I believe it is perfectly appropriate for us to reexamine this issue 5 years from now to ensure that the allocation of homeland security funding provides the necessary resources to communities most at risk.

For this reason, I will support the amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, later today, President Bush will start on a 6-day visit to five countries in the Western Hemisphere: Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico.

The trip comes at an important time for the region and for U.S. relations with our hemispheric neighbors. In an historic convergence, during a 13-month period beginning in November 2005 and ending this past December, a dozen countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean held Presidential elections. Those elections are a testament to the tremendous democratic strides made throughout the Americas during the past two decades and saw governments elected to power that span the ideological spectrum.

In many ways, the election results symbolize the important political, economic, and social change occurring throughout the Americas. As many have noted, the elections gave voice to a yearning across the hemisphere for social and economic development--a yearning among tens of millions of people for a better life. This is a welcome development and a challenge to all of us who wish to see the Americas continue down a path of democracy with justice, because, while we should welcome this democratic call for change, we must recognize that hard and steady work lies ahead to make these hopes a reality.

That a desire for fundamental change has been expressed through the ballot box is an enormous stride forward. Too often, change in the Americas has occurred in an anti-democratic fashion. Those days must permanently be put to rest. All citizens of the Americas have a fundamental right to live in freedom and to express themselves through robust democratic institutions.

That a desire for expanded prosperity has been given such clear voice raises the stakes. Governments must now do more to address the basic needs and aspirations of their people in an effective, democratic, and sustainable way. A failure to fulfill the most basic functions of government, and a failure to create the conditions in which tens of millions across the Americas can realize their hopes and break free of poverty could undo these gains. The denial of opportunity is now the most significant threat to the consolidation of democracy in the region.

Unfortunately, the elections and this desire for change have occurred at a time when U.S. prestige and influence have fallen to depths not seen in at

least a generation. As has been the case throughout the world, our standing in the Americas has suffered as a result of the misguided policies and actions of the Bush administration. It will take significant work to repair the damage wrought by 6 years of neglect and mismanagement of relations.

The United States can ill afford this deterioration of our standing. With each passing day, we draw closer together to our neighbors to the south. This convergence creates new challenges, but it also opens the door to a more hopeful future. If we pay careful attention to developments throughout the region and respond to them in a thoughtful and respectful way, then we can advance our many and varied national interests at stake in the Americas.

I welcome the President's decision to travel to five important countries in Latin America, and to reaffirm the importance of our relationship with the more than 500 million people who live to our south. I am, however, disappointed that the President has fallen so short in his promise to transform U.S. relations with the Americas. Our regional relationships cannot be properly attended to with one 6-day trip, a series of photo opportunities, and some lofty rhetoric on collaboration.

Nor does the Bush administration's declaration of 2007 as the year of engagement with the Americas suffice. One year of engagement out of seven is simply not good enough. In light of the Bush administration's woeful record, creating false expectations does more harm than good. We must be realistic about the challenges we face, and what we are doing to address them. We must devote our full time and our respectful attention to our relations within the hemisphere.

Earlier this week, President Bush spoke of a ``social justice'' agenda for the Americas. He was right to underscore the importance of addressing the basic needs of millions of our neighbors languishing in poverty. The primary responsibility for doing so, of course, lies with the governments and societies throughout the hemisphere. Yet helping to lift people out of widespread poverty is in our interests, just as it is in accord with our values. When instability spreads to our south, our security and economic interests are at risk. When our neighbors suffer, all of the Americas suffer.

The United States has an important role to play. Yet the President sends a mixed message when he makes his call for a social justice agenda after presenting the Congress with a budget for fiscal year 2008 that, with the exception of HIV/AIDS funding, slashes both assistance for economic development and health programs in the Americas. At a time when our standing in the hemisphere is so low, we cannot afford to send this kind of message. Our commitment to justice in the Americas must be expressed in more than one thoughtful expression in one pre-trip speech. Our commitment must be matched by our deeds, not just our words.

It is my hope that the President will break from his practice of touting the importance of the Americas during his travels only to turn his back upon his return.

Each stop on the President's trip presents an opportunity to move beyond rhetoric, to renew relations in the hemisphere, and to set a new course for sustained followthrough in a way that advances important U.S. interests.

In Brazil, it has been reported that President Bush is expected to join with President Inacio Lula de Silva to announce greater ethanol cooperation between the United States and Brazil. Together, the United States and Brazil are the world's largest ethanol producers and consumers. Brazil's more than 30 years of renewable fuel technology investments allowed it to achieve energy independence last year. Ethanol now accounts for 40 percent of Brazil's fuel usage. More than 80 percent of cars sold in Brazil today are flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on gasoline, ethanol, or a mixture thereof.

Greater Brazilian production of renewable fuels could boost sustainable economic development throughout Latin America and reshape the geopolitics of energy in the hemisphere, reducing the oil-driven influence of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. The more interhemispheric production and use of ethanol and other biofuels occurs, and the more such indigenously produced renewable fuels are used to replace fossil fuels, the better it is for our friends in the hemisphere.

As it relates to our country's drive toward energy independence, it does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol. In other words, those who advocate replacement of US-based biofuels production with Brazilian ethanol exports, however well intentioned they may be, are both misunderstanding our long-term energy security challenge and ignoring a valuable foreign policy opportunity. The U.S. needs to dramatically expand domestic biofuels production, not embrace a short term fix that discourages investment in the expansion of the domestic renewable fuels in industry. Also, accelerating technology advances and transferring the technology to our neighbors in the Caribbean and South America will help them employ their own resources to produce environmentally clean ethanol to reduce their imported oil bill, thereby promoting economic stability in the Caribbean and South and Central America and strengthen the U.S.-Brazil relationship.

It is vital that President Bush keeps the Congress involved each step forward in a U.S.-Brazil relationship based on renewable fuels. This relationship must be structured so as not to hamper the domestic production of renewable fuels, or the development of new technologies here at home that can enhance our energy security.

In Uruguay, President Bush has the opportunity to forge closer ties with President Tabare Vazquez and to show that the United States is ready, willing, and able to work productively with democratic-left governments. That this ability is in question and that it requires explaining underscores how badly the President and his administration have misunderstood and mismanaged the political, economic, and social change occurring throughout the Americas. The United States is seen as supporting democracy when it produces a desired result. It is vital to reverse that trend. I hope the President can begin that process, even if we have a long way to go.

The United States has invested a great deal--nearly $5 billion during the past 7 years--to help stabilize Colombia. A more peaceful, just, and stable Colombia is undoubtedly in our national interest. It is imperative, however, that greater peace and stability contribute to a reduction in the flow of drugs from Colombia to the United States. Thus far, we have not seen the kind of dropoff that the effective pursuit of our interests demands.

President Bush's closest ally in the region--Colombian President Alvaro Uribe--is embroiled in a controversy that has led to the arrest of eight of his supporters in the Colombian Congress and his former confidant and former chief of Colombia's secret police for ties to the country's narco-terrorist paramilitaries. President Bush must be careful to keep the pursuit of U.S. interests in Colombia distinct from specific personalities, or personal relationships. The further consolidation of legitimate governing institutions in Colombia--and the extension of their reach throughout Colombia are clearly in the national interest of the United States, and the interest of Colombia.

Guatemala shares deep connections with the United States. Nearly 1 in 10 Guatemalans now lives in the United States. Nearly $3 billion were remitted from the United States to Guatemala in 2005, representing approximately 10 percent of that country's gross domestic product. Having emerged from decades of internal conflict that left as many as 200,000 of its citizens dead, Guatemala finds itself struggling with a new scourge of violence that is causing instability. Gang and drug- related criminal violence and the country's staggering levels of poverty pose enormous challenges--challenges that affect our country as well. I am encouraged to see the Bush administration's new commitment to supporting a Central American regional approach to combat transnational gangs. This initiative should incorporate the most effective techniques and practices from the United States and from throughout the region. The United States must take the lead in rolling back the detrimental influence of these gangs in our own society and in Central America.

The relationship between the United States and Mexico is among our most important in the world. Getting it right is vital to advancing our core economic and security interests. To do that, a great deal of work needs to be done. Mexico is making strong efforts to address the drug trade and is working cooperatively with the United States on a number of security issues. But our complex relationship with Mexico has become captive to a single issue: the immigration debate in our country.

There is consensus that our immigration system is broken. It is past time to fix it, and I am proud of my own support for a workable solution. We need a comprehensive approach to illegal immigration that stops the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders, better manages immigration flows going forward, and deals fairly with the illegal immigrants already living and working in our country. A workable solution will require bipartisan support, and I will work to build it. The President has consistently voiced his support, for comprehensive immigration reform. It is my hope that upon his return from Mexico he will get to work, converting his words into deeds to help push comprehensive immigration reform forward.

A great deal of work needs to be done. We need to restore U.S. relations in the hemisphere. We need to consolidate the gains that have been made in the sweeping change of the last few years. We need to sustain our commitment to democracy, to social justice, and to opportunity for our neighbors to the south. The Western Hemisphere is too important to our core economic and security interests to be treated with the neglect and mismanagement that have defined the past 6 years. It is my hope that President Bush's trip marks the opening of a new chapter of cooperation and partnership a chapter of partnership with our neighbors to promote democracy with social and economic development for the benefit of all of us who live in the Americas. It is time for the United States to reclaim and renew its historic role as a leader in the hemisphere and an example of hope for all who seek opportunity in the Americas.

Mr. President, today is International Women's Day, a day to celebrate the social, economic, and political achievements of women around the world. We have come a long way in equality for women since that first International Women's Day in 1909. Yet, even as we celebrate these victories, we must acknowledge and increase awareness of the myriad struggles that women continue to face today. The battle against HIV/AIDS is one such struggle, and one that women in this Nation and across the world are losing. And that is why today, I am reintroducing the Microbicide Development Act, to help women protect themselves against deadly HIV infection.

The devastation that HIV/AIDS is causing around the world is, sadly, not news to any of us. During a visit to Africa last August, I was reminded of this tragedy. I visited an HIV/AIDS hospital in South Africa that was filled to capacity with people who walked hours--even days--just for the chance to seek help. I saw just a few of the 15 million orphans in Africa who lost their parents to this epidemic. All the while, I

remembered in the back of my mind that in some areas, 90 percent of those infected with HIV are unaware of their status, and this epidemic will only continue to get worse.

But what we don't always focus on is the particular devastation HIV/ AIDS is bringing to women worldwide. As of 2006, nearly half of the over 37 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide were women. In sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is 3 times higher among women ages 15 to 24 than among men of that age group. The severity of the problem hits close to home as well, with HIV/AIDS being the leading cause of death for African American women ages 25 to 34.

Women have unique biological vulnerabilities that make them twice as likely as men to contract HIV from an infected partner during intercourse. And for many women, particularly in the developing world, social and cultural norms deny them the ability to insist on mutual monogamy or condom use, thus limiting their tools for prevention. In many situations, women who become infected have only one partner--their husband. In fact, studies in India have shown that among women infected with HIV, 93 percent were married, and 91 percent overall had only one partner--their husbands. Focusing solely on ABC's--abstain, be faithful, use condoms--is clearly failing these women. There is a naivety in thinking that abstinence and fidelity are real options for all men and women around the world, and so we have a moral obligation to expand prevention tools.

Yet despite the fact that women have been increasingly devastated by this disease, female-initiated methods of prevention are limited and current prevention options are not enough.

Topical microbicides represent a woman-initiated method of prevention that would put the power of prevention in the hands of women. Mathematical models predict that even a partially effective microbicide could prevent 2.5 million infections over 3 years and that gradual introduction of newer and better microbicides could ultimately save a generation of women. Topical microbicides, therefore, represent a critical element in a comprehensive strategy to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

A number of groups, including the International Partnership for Microbicides, the Alliance for Microbicide Development, the National Women's Health Network, the Global Campaign for Microbicides, and the Gates Foundation, have led the effort to develop a prevention tool for use by women. The National Institutes of Health has invested in microbicides research, including support for the newly formed Microbicides Trial Network. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the efforts of the CDC and USAID in microbicide development. With 10 microbicide candidates currently in clinical development and over 30 in preclinical development, we are making headway in this field.

But we cannot let this momentum slow. We must continue to prioritize microbicide research and development. Increased Federal support and coordination, which is provided for in the Microbicide Development Act, will give a clear sign that the Federal Government is willing to put forth the effort critical to the development of an effective product to protect our mothers, daughters, sisters, and other loved ones. I echo the words of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who said that, ``with leadership, collaborative effort, sufficient financial resources, and product development expertise, a microbicide is within reach.'' Congress should support our Federal health agencies and their partners in their efforts, and passage of the Microbicide Development Act would give an unambiguous indication that this work is a priority for all of us.

In closing, I point out that we have made tremendous strides in medical treatment for individuals infected with HIV/AIDS. But this treatment comes with a price tag that is unsustainable. Between 2003 and 2005, for every one person receiving anti-retroviral treatment, ten more individuals became infected. We are not able to treat all of those currently infected let alone this exponentially growing number of individuals who will need treatment down the line. Universal treatment today would cost roughly $7 billion. Given that we only fund PEPFAR and the Global Fund at $2 billion, that $7 billion price tag, which is only going to grow, appears rather daunting. This financial situation serves to underscore the moral obligation we have to invest in microbicides and other prevention tools. Let us hope that during International Women's Days to come, we will be celebrating tremendous success in the fight against HIV/AIDS rather than the loss of yet another generation of women.

I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Microbicide Development Act.

Mr. President, today is International Women's Day, a day to celebrate the social, economic, and political achievements of women around the world. We have come a long way in equality for women since that first International Women's Day in 1909. Yet, even as we celebrate these victories, we must acknowledge and increase awareness of the myriad struggles that women continue to face today. The battle against HIV/AIDS is one such struggle, and one that women in this Nation and across the world are losing. And that is why today, I am reintroducing the Microbicide Development Act, to help women protect themselves against deadly HIV infection.

The devastation that HIV/AIDS is causing around the world is, sadly, not news to any of us. During a visit to Africa last August, I was reminded of this tragedy. I visited an HIV/AIDS hospital in South Africa that was filled to capacity with people who walked hours--even days--just for the chance to seek help. I saw just a few of the 15 million orphans in Africa who lost their parents to this epidemic. All the while, I

remembered in the back of my mind that in some areas, 90 percent of those infected with HIV are unaware of their status, and this epidemic will only continue to get worse.

But what we don't always focus on is the particular devastation HIV/ AIDS is bringing to women worldwide. As of 2006, nearly half of the over 37 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide were women. In sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is 3 times higher among women ages 15 to 24 than among men of that age group. The severity of the problem hits close to home as well, with HIV/AIDS being the leading cause of death for African American women ages 25 to 34.

Women have unique biological vulnerabilities that make them twice as likely as men to contract HIV from an infected partner during intercourse. And for many women, particularly in the developing world, social and cultural norms deny them the ability to insist on mutual monogamy or condom use, thus limiting their tools for prevention. In many situations, women who become infected have only one partner--their husband. In fact, studies in India have shown that among women infected with HIV, 93 percent were married, and 91 percent overall had only one partner--their husbands. Focusing solely on ABC's--abstain, be faithful, use condoms--is clearly failing these women. There is a naivety in thinking that abstinence and fidelity are real options for all men and women around the world, and so we have a moral obligation to expand prevention tools.

Yet despite the fact that women have been increasingly devastated by this disease, female-initiated methods of prevention are limited and current prevention options are not enough.

Topical microbicides represent a woman-initiated method of prevention that would put the power of prevention in the hands of women. Mathematical models predict that even a partially effective microbicide could prevent 2.5 million infections over 3 years and that gradual introduction of newer and better microbicides could ultimately save a generation of women. Topical microbicides, therefore, represent a critical element in a comprehensive strategy to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

A number of groups, including the International Partnership for Microbicides, the Alliance for Microbicide Development, the National Women's Health Network, the Global Campaign for Microbicides, and the Gates Foundation, have led the effort to develop a prevention tool for use by women. The National Institutes of Health has invested in microbicides research, including support for the newly formed Microbicides Trial Network. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the efforts of the CDC and USAID in microbicide development. With 10 microbicide candidates currently in clinical development and over 30 in preclinical development, we are making headway in this field.

But we cannot let this momentum slow. We must continue to prioritize microbicide research and development. Increased Federal support and coordination, which is provided for in the Microbicide Development Act, will give a clear sign that the Federal Government is willing to put forth the effort critical to the development of an effective product to protect our mothers, daughters, sisters, and other loved ones. I echo the words of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who said that, ``with leadership, collaborative effort, sufficient financial resources, and product development expertise, a microbicide is within reach.'' Congress should support our Federal health agencies and their partners in their efforts, and passage of the Microbicide Development Act would give an unambiguous indication that this work is a priority for all of us.

In closing, I point out that we have made tremendous strides in medical treatment for individuals infected with HIV/AIDS. But this treatment comes with a price tag that is unsustainable. Between 2003 and 2005, for every one person receiving anti-retroviral treatment, ten more individuals became infected. We are not able to treat all of those currently infected let alone this exponentially growing number of individuals who will need treatment down the line. Universal treatment today would cost roughly $7 billion. Given that we only fund PEPFAR and the Global Fund at $2 billion, that $7 billion price tag, which is only going to grow, appears rather daunting. This financial situation serves to underscore the moral obligation we have to invest in microbicides and other prevention tools. Let us hope that during International Women's Days to come, we will be celebrating tremendous success in the fight against HIV/AIDS rather than the loss of yet another generation of women.

I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Microbicide Development Act.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act (CPA) of 2007 with my good

friend Congressman Luis Gutierrez. In the Senate, we are joined by Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, and Senator Bingaman. The CPA will encourage the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to charge fees for services to legal immigrants that are fair and reasonable, and it would remove other potential bureaucratic barriers to the pursuit of citizenship.

Immigration policy remains one of the most contentious and divisive issues in our politics. And it is contentious and divisive because our policies are full of mixed messages. We must state clearly what our immigration policy should achieve--a legal, orderly, and secure immigration system that values immigrants, recognizes our right to control who enters our country, and promotes the legal pursuit of citizenship.

Most recently, the unanimous declarations of our support for legal immigrants has run head on into a USCIS proposal to dramatically increase immigration application fees beyond the reach of many working class legal immigrants. For a family of four that is working hard and legally pursuing the American dream, the new fees could put citizenship out of reach for many immigrants. For a family of four, the new fees would raise the cost of the application for citizenship by 80 percent to more than $2,400 dollars. And the fees for all other services will rise as well.

The Administration argues that people will pay any fee to become Americans. For many people, that is true. But for others, the new fee will send the message that they need only apply if they can afford it. It sends the message that we measure character based on income.

Our government has never provided services based on what people are willing to pay. That is why we are introducing the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair and that the citizenship process itself respects the individuality of each applicant.

For immigrants who choose to come to America and pursue citizenship, there are numerous barriers. First, family, friends, and community are left behind. The new communities they enter come with the challenge of a new language, different social norms, and sometimes discrimination. And yet, every year, thousands of immigrants fully embrace the values and ideals that make us all Americans and unite us in our common pursuit of a better, more democratic society.

The dues we charge legal immigrants for joining the American family, from application fees to naturalization tests to background checks are all necessary, but should not eliminate people on the basis of income, age, or ethnicity. Excessive fees, testing that asks trivial questions or is administered without consideration for the applicant's circumstances, and background checks that take years to complete tell us more about ourselves than they do about those wishing to enter.

We believe that there are ways to help cushion the blow to immigrants from increased costs without hurting the agency. The CPA would make it clear to the USCIS that application fees do not need to fund all direct and indirect costs. We would maintain fees at their current levels and require that before raising fees any further, the agency report to Congress on its direct and indirect costs and how much in appropriations it would need to establish reasonable and fair fees.

In addition to ensuring that fees are fair, we want to make sure that other aspects of pursuing citizenship are fair as well. Our bill requires that citizenship tests be administered with consideration for the applicant, that the agency work with the FBI to move background checks through the process more quickly, and that any new application procedure make it possible for people without Internet access to continue submitting their applications on paper. The bill also creates a new grant program to give community based organizations the resources necessary to prepare and equip immigrants to become citizens.

Let's stop sending mixed messages. Let's work together and set immigration fees at a level that are fair and consistent with our commitment to being an open, democratic, and egalitarian society.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act (CPA) of 2007 with my good

friend Congressman Luis Gutierrez. In the Senate, we are joined by Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, and Senator Bingaman. The CPA will encourage the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to charge fees for services to legal immigrants that are fair and reasonable, and it would remove other potential bureaucratic barriers to the pursuit of citizenship.

Immigration policy remains one of the most contentious and divisive issues in our politics. And it is contentious and divisive because our policies are full of mixed messages. We must state clearly what our immigration policy should achieve--a legal, orderly, and secure immigration system that values immigrants, recognizes our right to control who enters our country, and promotes the legal pursuit of citizenship.

Most recently, the unanimous declarations of our support for legal immigrants has run head on into a USCIS proposal to dramatically increase immigration application fees beyond the reach of many working class legal immigrants. For a family of four that is working hard and legally pursuing the American dream, the new fees could put citizenship out of reach for many immigrants. For a family of four, the new fees would raise the cost of the application for citizenship by 80 percent to more than $2,400 dollars. And the fees for all other services will rise as well.

The Administration argues that people will pay any fee to become Americans. For many people, that is true. But for others, the new fee will send the message that they need only apply if they can afford it. It sends the message that we measure character based on income.

Our government has never provided services based on what people are willing to pay. That is why we are introducing the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair and that the citizenship process itself respects the individuality of each applicant.

For immigrants who choose to come to America and pursue citizenship, there are numerous barriers. First, family, friends, and community are left behind. The new communities they enter come with the challenge of a new language, different social norms, and sometimes discrimination. And yet, every year, thousands of immigrants fully embrace the values and ideals that make us all Americans and unite us in our common pursuit of a better, more democratic society.

The dues we charge legal immigrants for joining the American family, from application fees to naturalization tests to background checks are all necessary, but should not eliminate people on the basis of income, age, or ethnicity. Excessive fees, testing that asks trivial questions or is administered without consideration for the applicant's circumstances, and background checks that take years to complete tell us more about ourselves than they do about those wishing to enter.

We believe that there are ways to help cushion the blow to immigrants from increased costs without hurting the agency. The CPA would make it clear to the USCIS that application fees do not need to fund all direct and indirect costs. We would maintain fees at their current levels and require that before raising fees any further, the agency report to Congress on its direct and indirect costs and how much in appropriations it would need to establish reasonable and fair fees.

In addition to ensuring that fees are fair, we want to make sure that other aspects of pursuing citizenship are fair as well. Our bill requires that citizenship tests be administered with consideration for the applicant, that the agency work with the FBI to move background checks through the process more quickly, and that any new application procedure make it possible for people without Internet access to continue submitting their applications on paper. The bill also creates a new grant program to give community based organizations the resources necessary to prepare and equip immigrants to become citizens.

Let's stop sending mixed messages. Let's work together and set immigration fees at a level that are fair and consistent with our commitment to being an open, democratic, and egalitarian society.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment just introduced by Senator Specter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so I may call up an amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 338 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, it was a typical fall day in New York City. People were headed to work, cars were stuck in traffic, the subways were packed, and the construction crews were busy rebuilding at Ground Zero. Nearby, Con Ed personnel were at work in a manhole, and they made a tragic discovery: ID tags and human remains not seen since that other fall day 5 years earlier. The city paused again. It launched another effort to recover and identify those taken from us on that dark September day.

The recovery is continuing after all this time. The recovery continues 5\1/2\ years later, and just last week more victims were unearthed. After all this time, we are still recovering from September 11. Our prayers remain with the family members and friends who still mourn and miss the fathers and mothers and children who made their lives complete. During the Homeland Security Committee meeting to discuss the underlying bill, I met with some of those loved ones.

That is why we are here today. We are here to do the work that ensures no other family members have to lose a loved one to a terrorist who turns a plane into a missile, a terrorist who straps a bomb around her waist and climbs aboard a bus, a terrorist who figures out how to set off a dirty bomb in one of our cities. This is why we are here: to make our country safer and make sure the nearly 3,000 who were taken from us did not die in vain; that their legacy will be a more safe and secure Nation. That is what lies at the heart of this 9/11 bill. It is not just

about how we send the money from Washington to States and local governments; it is about saving lives and doing everything in our power to prevent another attack, to prevent another tragedy, to ensure no one climbs down a manhole expecting to do their work only to find the deceased left in darkness 5 years earlier. That is why we are here--to protect our people.

Most of us had hoped these steps would have already been taken, would have been taken many years ago, that we would have capitalized on the unity and national spirit we shared after the towers fell, the Pentagon was hit, and the Pennsylvania field smoldered. It is never too late to do, however, what is right for our country.

It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since the 9/11 Commission issued its report. Not only did the panel of dedicated American researchers find out what happened that day, but they also gave a list of serious recommendations about how to make our country safer in the future. The 9/11 Commission showed us how to move beyond the politics of division in order to achieve the solemn task of better protecting our country.

In its report, the Commission said the following:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities [and] federal

homeland security assistance should not remain a program for

general revenue sharing.

This is one of the goals of the 9/11 Commission. My amendment that I just introduced moves us closer to a true system of risk-based allocation of State homeland security grants and ensures that funding goes to areas most at risk of terrorist attacks.

This is not an issue of big States versus little States or urban States versus rural States. It is about good policy and about maximizing our use of the people's money.

Today, the system is set up so that all States receive at least .75 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program dollars. After each State receives that minimum level of funding, the dollars are then allocated according to risk. As a result, the current amount of State minimum funding eats up approximately 40 percent of that funding.

While the new bill does attempt to address this problem--and I applaud Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for trying to bring the .75 percent down to .45 percent--the bill does not go far enough. It is a good first step, but we are already 50 yards behind, sending too much money to areas where there are not real risks, threats, and vulnerabilities. That is why we must use the most dollars in those areas which are at the greatest risk of attack. We cannot afford to waste a single cent on places that do not need immediate help when first responders in major cities still lack the basic communications equipment they need to talk to one another if, Heaven forbid, tragedy strikes again.

That is why the families of 9/11 recently issued a statement saying:

Reports of air conditioned garbage trucks being purchased

with homeland security funds are indicative of the frivolity

that results from non risk-based methods. When the threat

against our Nation is so real, we cannot afford not to take

it seriously.

That is why the 9/11 Commission said Congress should not use this money as porkbarrel. That is why in 2005 the Commission issued a report giving the Nation an ``F'' for risk-based funding. That is why 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton recently sent me a letter. He wrote:

Since 9/11 and since the issuance of our report, the United

States has not allocated homeland security resources wisely.

Resources for homeland security are not unlimited, so it is

thus essential that they be distributed based on a careful

analysis of the risk, vulnerability and potential

consequences of a terrorist attack. Adopting such a risk-

based approach would make the best use of our homeland

security resources, and would make the American people safer.

That is why 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer wrote in support of this amendment, saying:

We cannot afford to waste any more money, time or effort.

That is why the amendment I offer today, a bipartisan amendment with the support of Senators Warner, Coburn, Landrieu, Kennedy, Menendez, Clinton, and Schumer, reduces the guaranteed State minimum to .25 percent and allows those States on our northern and southern borders to see an increased minimum of .45 percent. This basic framework was adopted by a wide bipartisan margin in the House in January.

It is time for all of us to approach homeland security funding not as something we can bring home to the States we represent but funding we can use to better protect the United States of America. As we lower the guaranteed amount, we increase the funding available to protect those places most at risk, and 40 States will receive either the same amount or an increase in the funding they need to better protect our borders, our ports, our railways, our subways, our chemical plants, our nuclear powerplants, our food supply, and our firefighters, police officers, and EMTs.

We have waited more than 5 years to better develop our approach to funding our security in a post-9/11 world. Sometimes division and politics have prevented us from doing what we need to do. But I believe those days are finally behind us. We have a real chance to not only learn from our mistakes but to get the job done and better protect our people. That is why we are here--to make our country as safe and secure as we can. That is the common cause we all share. The American people need to see that in us today. The 9/11 Commission experts that from us. The families and friends of the 9/11 victims are owed that from us-- that we will never forget those who died. We will never forget those who are suffering and sick because of their heroism that day. We will never forget that 60 percent of the victims were never identified. We will never forget that we are still recovering from 9/11--and that is why our work goes on.

Mr. President, let me add one last point.

I recognize it is difficult for some to see any shift of funding because it is difficult if that State potentially sees their funding reduced. But even within Illinois, I confront some of these same issues.

The fact of the matter is I have fought at the State level and have said publicly we should make sure risk assessments entirely determine how money within Illinois is allocated. That is the same approach we need to take for the Nation as a whole. Keep in mind my home city of Chicago is actually doing quite well under the current formula. So this is not something that is based solely on any parochial concerns.

I ask unanimous consent that the statements of the 9/11 families, the 9/11 Commission chairman, Lee Hamilton, and 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer be printed in the Record, as well as a chart showing how each State would fare under my amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to commend Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for their hard work on this issue. I acknowledge that the underlying bill is an improvement over the status quo. It is just that we can do so much better. I ask that we ensure this amendment be included in the final package we vote on.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator from Maine will yield, I want to ask a couple of questions based on my understanding. Maybe I am confused.

We based our assessment of which States see an increase, which States do not see an increase, and which States see a decrease under our bill on the CRS analysis, assuming $913 million appropriated. They tell us 34 States will see an increase in funding, 6 States will see the same amount of funding under my amendment to S. 4, and 10 States will see a loss. We have not had the benefit of the analysis that was just presented on that chart indicating 32 States would see a decrease, so I am curious if either the chairman or the Senator from Maine would tell me where they got that statistic. Because I understand the statement was made: Well, the formulas may change, and this was based on the previous formula.

I have no problem with changing the formula so it is more risk-based assessed. But I don't understand how it is that simply because we are going to eliminate some of the flaws of the previous formula that somehow--or the risk assessments, that somehow that is going to change the basic assessment that was made by the Congressional Research Service.

I am happy for either Senator to respond.

Very briefly----

Thank you very much. I want to make clear now, it sounds to me as if we are comparing apples and oranges. Assuming we--which is what CRS did--apply the same formula on my amendment, my amendment would have 34 States see an increase in funding, and 6 States would remain the same. Now, if the funding formula changes, it might change 1 or 2 States, depending on what the risk assessments were, but it is not going to result in 32 States suddenly seeing a decrease in funding. This is a decrease in funding based on the bare minimums without applying any of the additional funding which we know is going to be coming. So it strikes me that chart does not describe at all the reality of what would happen under my amendment. I want to make sure I am clear in terms of what we are preparing here, because the best estimate of how this funding will be impacted is based on the CRS's own assessment of what would have happened this year.

Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

It is their time.

I certainly yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine to respond to my inquiry.

Madam President, I want to be exactly clear on what we are talking about here so there is no confusion among my colleagues. No one disputes that under my amendment, the minimum funding changes. That is the whole point of the amendment, is to change the minimum funding levels and shift more of the money into the risk-based assessment. So to state that 32 States lose on the minimum funding levels is to state the obvious. That is the point of the amendment.

The point is more money then goes into the risk-based funding, and when you factor that in, unless there is going to be no risk-based funding--I mean I suppose that is a possibility, but I don't think so-- all that money, when you factor it in, will result in, under last year's formula, 34 States gaining and 6 States staying the same.

Now, I also agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine that there were problems with last year's formula, and I am fine with changes to that formula. I have actively supported changes to that formula, including any possible shortchanging of high-risk areas such as Washington, DC or New York.

The point of my amendment is very simple, and that is more money is allocated on the basis of risk. I am not concerned about predetermining where those risks are. That is the job of the Department of Homeland Security, and that is the purpose of our amendment.

I want to be clear. Under your chart, Illinois loses money that is guaranteed under the minimum funding, as does New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. But I would note that Senators Menendez, Coburn, and Landrieu were all cosponsors because they understand when the money is allocated based on risk, then wherever we live throughout the United States, we are going to be potentially better off.

I am going to make one last point and then I am happy to listen to a response. Both Senators Lieberman and Collins talked about an all- hazards funding approach. I have no objection to that either. But keep in mind, we are talking here about the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which is not supposed to be targeted at all hazards. We have a separate program--the Emergency Management Grant Program--that is supposed to be addressing all hazards and that is why this amendment does not touch that portion of homeland security funding that is directed at all hazards. That is not the purpose of the State Homeland Security Grant Program. The purpose of that is supposed to be to deal with potential terrorist threats. That is why the 9/11 Commission and Chairman Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families, all of whom I think have great concern about the safety of all Americans, indicate it makes sense for us to allocate this as much on the basis of risk as possible.

It is for that reason that the House allocated funding on the basis of the formula we are discussing. I wish to make sure that anybody who is listening understands, yes, the guaranteed minimum funding might be less for 32 States, but that is because more of the money goes into the pot based on risk. When you add the funding that will be allocated on the basis of risk, then we can assume that at least 34 States would see an increase under my amendment, and 6 States would see about the same amount of funding. If the formula changes, it is conceivable that instead of 34 States, it may be 32 States or 36 States that see an increase in funding; instead of 6 States with the same amount under both amendments, it might be 4 States or 8 States. But the basic principle is that the funding is going to be allocated on risk. The Emergency Management Planning Grant Program deals with all-hazards funding.

Madam President, I have a very quick comment, and then I will yield to the Senator from New Jersey, who wants to speak on this amendment. I wish to make perfectly clear that the statement made by the Senator from Delaware is absolutely right. Every State has some risks. I have no doubt that Delaware has chemical plants and there are ports and various facilities that constitute real risk. Under the formula I am advocating, the funding is allocated on the basis of risk that will take into account such infrastructure. The notion somehow that the Department of Homeland Security will not take chemical plants into account is simply incorrect.

Rural States, small States, large States--for all states, all of the allocations that are made, other than the .25 percent guaranteed level of funding, would be made on the basis of risk. The Department of Homeland Security will presumably make an educated, expert assessment on the risk that exists in Delaware, Maine or Connecticut. So it is not as if those States would not be getting money under this amendment. It is simply that the judgment of those experts, who are paid to determine what the threats are and what the risks are, would be the guiding basis upon which we make these decisions.

Madam President, I would like to yield the remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey.

The Senator from New Jersey has been waiting for quite some time.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from New Jersey for an eloquent summation of what this amendment is about. What I would like to do is reiterate my response to some of the issues that were raised by the distinguished Senators from Connecticut and Maine.

No. 1, we are talking about real money. We don't have exact figures, but let's assume we are talking about around $80 million that would be shifted from guaranteed funding to the States and instead would be allocated on the basis of risk. That $80 million will mean firefighters are getting the equipment they need in States that have higher risks. It will mean more money will be available for interoperability systems. It means this money will be allocated to States that have chemical plants and nuclear plants in higher proportion than those States that do not. In each case, this money, under my amendment, will be allocated on the basis of the risk assessments made by experts, as recommended under the 9/11 Commission Report, and will not be allocated simply on the basis that every State gets a piece of the pie regardless of risk, threats and vulnerabilities.

To go back to the issue of how many States benefit or lose, my main point is that we all win when the money is allocated on the basis of risk. We all win. Every State wins. But in terms of the estimates of which States gain and which States lose, I reiterate, the chart that was put up by the Senator from Maine is only talking about the amount of money that is allocated on the basis of guaranteed funding, not based on risk. The additional funding, the lion's share of the funding, as the Senator from Delaware stated, will be allocated on the basis of risk, and once you factor that in, then you can be assured that the overwhelming majority of States will get more money under my amendment than they will under the underlying bill. That is the central point. Don't get confused when it is stated that 32 States stand to lose money under this amendment. They stand to lose the guaranteed money because more money goes back into risk assessment, and once it is put back into the States, then you will see a majority of States gaining under my amendment.

Madam President, there is one last point I wish to reiterate. One of the seemingly plausible arguments made by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine was that we want an all-hazards funding approach--hurricanes, natural disasters. We want to make sure that money is fairly allocated. I reiterate, that is not the point of this program. We have another program that allocates on the basis of all hazards. That is the Emergency Management Planning Grant Program.

So if they want to make an argument that money should be allocated to all States at a certain percentage to guarantee minimum funding for all hazards funding, that is entirely sensible, but that is not what this funding stream is all about. This funding stream is supposed to address the specific risks and

threats of terrorism. So if we want to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report, then we must protect against those particular risks for which the program is designed.

I appreciate the healthy debate. This does not always happen on the floor of the Senate. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, the chairman of the committee, for entertaining as many questions as he did, and I thank him for his patience.

I reiterate that the underlying bill is an improvement over the status quo, but the same principles that drove the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine to change and reduce the amount of minimum funding each State obtains is the same principle of my amendment. I just take it a step further.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you applied the manner of calculating funding that was up on the chart behind the Senator from Maine, it is not clear to me you wouldn't see a whole bunch of States losing under the change the Chairman has proposed as well. But what he realizes and the reason he thinks the underlying bill makes sense is because that money is going to be distributed based on risk, and in the end a lot of States will do better. This amendment is no different. It simply takes it a step further in line with what the House has done and in line with what the 9/11 Commission Report recommends.

I urge all my colleagues to join on this amendment. I believe it will be an improvement not just for some States but for the entire country.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this amendment aims at moving us closer to a risk-based allocation of resources. It takes us a step closer to the 9/11 Commission report. I want to let everyone know that 34 States actually potentially do better under this amendment. Six States are held harmless, and there are some States that would get less money. But keep in mind the whole goal of this particular program is to ensure that money is allocated on the basis of risk. It would still be .25 percent of the money allocated to every State. It would still be a minimum, and there would still be money through other programs that would ensure that money is allocated to States for all-hazard purposes.

So I strongly urge all in this Chamber to take a look at this bill and look at the chart that we passed out. There have been arguments from my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, as well as the Senator from Maine, suggesting that somehow States get less money. That is only the baseline; it does not include the money that would be allocated on the basis of risk.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to table.

Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West.

The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s.

Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive.

At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy- saving measure ever adopted.

Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump. The price of oil has reached up to $78 a barrel, and Americans have paid more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a- day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.''

At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher, CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years.

Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that

has ignored technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled our ability to increase fuel efficiency.

To attempt to break this two-decade-Iong deadlock and start the U.S. on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Coleman, and Specter to introduce the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2007. This bill would set a new course by establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise and flexibility on how to meet those targets.

Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress.

Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases.

The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.

In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced- technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among certain vehicle types and between manufacturers.

Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids.

By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support the Fuel Economy Reform Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West.

The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s.

Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive.

At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy- saving measure ever adopted.

Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump. The price of oil has reached up to $78 a barrel, and Americans have paid more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a- day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.''

At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher, CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years.

Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that

has ignored technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled our ability to increase fuel efficiency.

To attempt to break this two-decade-Iong deadlock and start the U.S. on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Coleman, and Specter to introduce the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2007. This bill would set a new course by establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise and flexibility on how to meet those targets.

Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress.

Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases.

The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.

In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced- technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among certain vehicle types and between manufacturers.

Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids.

By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support the Fuel Economy Reform Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I am proud to introduce the Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act of 2007 with the goal of having the Act help inform voters and State officials on how well their States are doing on a basic set of procedural standards for making polls accessible to voters and making the right to vote as easy to exercise as possible.

The Act would establish an Office of the Voter Advocate within the Election Assistance Commission that would be charged with creating a Democracy Index. The Index would rank States according to a system of measurable, basic state election practices. With that information, States could identify weak spots in their process, and voters could push for better performance.

The concept is based on a proposal that Yale Law School Professor Heather Gerken published this January in Legal Times. It focuses on issues that matter to all voters: How long did voters spend in line? How many ballots got discarded? How often did the balloting machinery break down?

The Act would constitute an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the Nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information.

This bill would provide that information. Some voters have personally experienced problems in casting a ballot; others see stories on the news about election results tainted by malfunctioning machines, inadequate registration lists, or poorly trained administrators. I believe that these issues are merely the visible symptoms of a deeper, systemic problem in the way our election system is run. But voters need a yardstick for evaluating the full extent of the problem and what needs to be done to improve the election process in their State.

Toward that end, this bill would charge the Office of the Voter Advocate with creating the Democracy Index and specifying the success or failure of States in meeting the criteria that the index is going to measure. The bill also ensures that the Office of the Voter Advocate will draw upon the experience and knowledge of experts and citizens in thinking about what information voters would want to know in evaluating the health of their State's election process. And it requires the Office to establish a pilot program for the 2008 election, use the lessons learned from that experience, and make the Index a reality nationwide as soon as possible.

The Democracy Index would encourage healthy competition among States to improve their systems. It would allow states to engage in healthy experimentation about how best to run an election. In short, the Democracy Index will empower voters and encourage States to work toward the goal we all share: an election system that makes us all proud.

Mr. President. I am proud to introduce the Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act of 2007 with the goal of having the Act help inform voters and State officials on how well their States are doing on a basic set of procedural standards for making polls accessible to voters and making the right to vote as easy to exercise as possible.

The Act would establish an Office of the Voter Advocate within the Election Assistance Commission that would be charged with creating a Democracy Index. The Index would rank States according to a system of measurable, basic state election practices. With that information, States could identify weak spots in their process, and voters could push for better performance.

The concept is based on a proposal that Yale Law School Professor Heather Gerken published this January in Legal Times. It focuses on issues that matter to all voters: How long did voters spend in line? How many ballots got discarded? How often did the balloting machinery break down?

The Act would constitute an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the Nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information.

This bill would provide that information. Some voters have personally experienced problems in casting a ballot; others see stories on the news about election results tainted by malfunctioning machines, inadequate registration lists, or poorly trained administrators. I believe that these issues are merely the visible symptoms of a deeper, systemic problem in the way our election system is run. But voters need a yardstick for evaluating the full extent of the problem and what needs to be done to improve the election process in their State.

Toward that end, this bill would charge the Office of the Voter Advocate with creating the Democracy Index and specifying the success or failure of States in meeting the criteria that the index is going to measure. The bill also ensures that the Office of the Voter Advocate will draw upon the experience and knowledge of experts and citizens in thinking about what information voters would want to know in evaluating the health of their State's election process. And it requires the Office to establish a pilot program for the 2008 election, use the lessons learned from that experience, and make the Index a reality nationwide as soon as possible.

The Democracy Index would encourage healthy competition among States to improve their systems. It would allow states to engage in healthy experimentation about how best to run an election. In short, the Democracy Index will empower voters and encourage States to work toward the goal we all share: an election system that makes us all proud.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator McCaskill.

Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center including decaying, cockroach-infested facilities and an overwhelmed patient-care bureaucracy. As described in a series of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Priest and Anne Hull, wounded soldiers are returning home from the battle in Iraq only to face a new battle to get the care and benefits they have earned.

These stories should not have come as a complete surprise to those who have followed the issue closely. We have long known that troops returning from battle face numerous bureaucratic hurdles when they get home. That's why I introduced legislation last year to smooth the transition from active duty to civilian life. The Lane Evans Bill expands and improves electronic medical records, face-to-face physical exams, better tracking of veterans, and other approaches to make life easier for returning veterans.

However, the stories out of Walter Reed last week did shock my conscience because, like many Senators, I have made the half-hour trek from the Capitol to visit Walter Reed. And I saw what the Army wanted the world to see: a shining world-class facility where the wounded can heal with state-of-the-art care. I never saw mold growing on the walls, or broken elevators, or the lack of adequate support for soldiers and their families. Walter Reed was supposed to be the flagship of military health care. Instead it has become an emblem of much that is wrong with the system, and a harbinger of more severe problems that may be hiding at other military hospitals and facilities that are not in the spotlight.

The problems at Walter Reed stem from complex causes, the most important of which is that the military and VA have not yet prepared for the growing flood of casualties from the Iraq war. Our injured troops did not hesitate to fight for us on the battlefield--we shouldn't make them fight again at home in order to receive the care they deserve. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are introducing the bipartisan Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act today. The bill will fix the problems at Walter Reed and improve care at our military hospitals and facilities.

Our bill would fix deplorable conditions at outpatient residence facilities by setting high standards and increasing accountability. Under this bipartisan measure, the standards will be clear. First, recovering soldiers' rooms will be as good or better as the best standard rooms for active-duty troops. Second, our injured heroes will not have to wait more than two weeks for maintenance problems to be repaired. Third, we will have zero tolerance for pest infestations. And finally, emergency medical personnel and crisis counselors will be available to recovering troops 24 hours a day.

The bill also tackles accountability problems. In the days following the Post stories, the Army vice chief of staff, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs both said they were surprised by conditions at Walter Reed and directed blame on lower-ranking officers and noncommissioned officers. I also read in the Army Times that soldiers at Walter Reed have been warned not to talk to the media. Under our bill, we won't have to rely on the media to inform the Congress and the American people of the conditions at military hospitals. It requires that the Inspector General inspect facilities twice a year and report conditions to high-level officials and the public. Under our bill, military leaders will no longer be able to use the excuse that they didn't know conditions on the ground.

When injured servicemembers return home, they along with their family members face a mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy. From the moment a doctor determines a soldier may be unable to return to duty, it takes an average of 209 days for the military to figure out what to do with the soldier. The system is broken, and soldiers and their families are the ones who pay the price. Our bill addresses this problem by bringing the far flung parts of the military's Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) under one roof in each branch of the military. It also puts much of the system online so that caseworkers and servicemembers can manage their documents electronically. Today, students can apply to go to law school or business school online, without ever having to touch a piece of paper. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy should be that easy.

Our bill also calls for injury-specific procedures so that the most severely injured servicemembers can skip unnecessary steps. There's no reason why a soldier with a gunshot injury to the spine should face the same procedural hurdles in order to prove his injury was service- related as a soldier with less severe injuries. At the same time, nothing in our bill will prevent those servicemembers who wish to stay in the military from appealing decisions. Our bill also helps soldiers and their families navigate the PDES system with new hotlines, manuals, and an ombudsman to help answer questions.

Another problem at Walter Reed is casework. The caseworkers are doing amazing work helping soldiers schedule medical appointments, prepare paperwork, and obtain their everyday needs. However, the caseworkers are overwhelmed. Some have to care for 50 or more recovering soldiers at a time, more than double the ideal ratio. The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act fixes this problem by forcing the Pentagon to work with each military hospital to set the ideal ratio of caseworkers to patients based on the particular needs of that facility. In the interim, our bill requires a temporary ratio of 1 caseworker for every 20 recovering servicemembers. This will push the Pentagon to begin hiring and training caseworkers right away.

This legislation also provides important new support for family members who often have to endure economic and emotional hardship to accompany their loved one through the recovery process and the currently flawed PDES process. It clarifies that non-medical attendees and family members on invitational orders may receive medical care and mental health counseling while caring for injured loved ones at military facilities. It extends employment and job placement training services to family members. And most important, this bipartisan legislation provides federal protections against a family member on invitational orders being fired. I think we can all agree that a mother should never have to choose between caring for a wounded son or daughter and keeping her job.

Secretary Gates promised a thorough investigation by outside experts and accountability for those responsible. Our bill builds on that model by establishing an Oversight Board of outside experts to review the Pentagon's progress in implementing this bill. The Board would be appointed by Congress and the executive branch and be made up of veterans, wounded soldiers, family members and experts on military medicine. The Oversight Board will be an important check to make sure the Defense Department is following through to care for recovering troops.

We cannot move fast enough to make sure our wounded troops are getting the care they need. No cost is too great. We must pass the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act quickly and follow up with the adequate resources to ensure the men and women recovering at military hospitals across the world get the best care we can offer.