Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed by the Senate's failure to consider a bill that would have placed the needs of seniors ahead of the profits of the health industry. Once again, a minority of the Senate has allowed the power and the profits of the pharmaceutical industry to trump good policy and the will of the American people.

We have a major crisis in this Nation, and that is the rising cost of health care. Over the last century, the Nation has witnessed tremendous advances in medical science and technology, and we now have treatments and cures for diseases and conditions that were at one time surely fatal.

Yet we are paying the price for this success. Health care, particularly the cost of drugs, is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Over the last decade the cost of drugs has quintupled, now totaling almost $200 billion. In 2005, the drug companies' profit was 16 percent of their revenues, compared to only 6 percent for all Fortune 500 firms. The total profit of the top 7 U.S. based drug companies was $34 billion in 2004, and, if you add it up, their CEOs were paid $91 million that same year. Clearly, the new drug benefit in Medicare has been a tremendous boon for the drug companies, adding to these extreme profits.

The growth in the cost of drugs has slowed in recent years, in part because of greater use of generic drugs. But given the pricetag, and the financial challenges of our health care system, we can--and must-- take additional steps to curb how much we are spending on drugs.

Allowing the Federal Government to negotiate for lower drug prices in the Medicare Program would have been an important step forward in this regard. When you look at the prices the Federal Government has negotiated for our veterans and military men and women, it is clear that the government can--and should--use its leverage to lower prices for our seniors as well.

Drug negotiation is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do, and it is unconscionable that we were not able to take up this bill today.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation concerning the upcoming elections in Nigeria.

The people of Nigeria have a historic achievement within their grasp: their country's first peaceful, democratic transfer of power from one elected civilian government to another. To secure this victory for themselves and for Africa, and to retain the kind of international confidence in Nigeria's future that is essential for the country's growth, Nigerians need and deserve the strongest possible international support for free, fair, and peaceful elections on April 14 and 21.

Successful elections are not guaranteed. Political violence and serious irregularities have tarnished past polling in parts of the country, denying some Nigerians their democratic rights. No one truly interested in Nigeria's long-term stability and prosperity can accept repeats of these incidents as regular features of the country's political landscape.

There is already cause for concern this time around. Regrettably, preparations for this month's elections have been sluggish, and the independence of the electoral commission has been compromised. Important national discussions about corruption and accountability have been temporarily hijacked by elaborate preelection maneuvering.

But the Nigerian people can still succeed in exercising their democratic rights and taking control of their national destiny. The rule of law, not the wishes of the powerful, can resolve outstanding questions about the electoral process. American interests in working with a strong and democratic Nigerian partner will remain powerful regardless of who is victorious when the returns come in, which is precisely why we should use our voice now, not to favor any party or candidate, but to support Nigeria's democracy.

Mr. President, I stand in full support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act as I did when this bill was introduced and sent to the President's desk in the 109th Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

I am frustrated by the opposition this bill has generated and saddened that we are preventing the advancement of important science that could potentially impact millions of suffering Americans. The study of stem cells holds enormous promise for the treatment of debilitating and life-threatening diseases. However, in order to reach this level of medical achievement, much more research is necessary to understand, and eventually harness, the amazing potential of stem cells. Instead of creating roadblocks, we must all work together to expand Federal funding of stem cell research and continue moving forward in our fight against disease by advancing our knowledge through science and medicine.

Each year, 100,000 Americans will develop Alzheimer's disease, with impaired memory, ability to understand, and judgment. Over 1 million adults will be diagnosed with diabetes this year, and risk complications that include blindness, damaged nerves, and loss of kidney function. We all know or have met individuals with spinal cord injuries, including national celebrities, local war heroes, and loved ones from our own families and circles of friends, who are struggling to maintain mobility and independence.

For most of our history, medicine has offered little hope of recovery to the 100 million individuals affected by these and other devastating illnesses and injuries.

Until now.

Recent developments in stem cell research may hold the key to improved treatments, if not cures, for those affected by Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and countless other conditions.

Many men, women, and children who are cancer survivors are already familiar with the lifesaving applications of adult stem cell research. Patients with leukemia or lymphoma often undergo bone marrow transplants, a type of stem cell transplant, which can significantly prolong life or permanently get rid of the cancer. This therapy has been used successfully for decades, and is saving lives every day.

Yet this breakthrough has its serious limitations. Adult stem cells, such as those used in bone marrow transplants, can only be collected in small quantities, may not be a match for the patient, which can lead to rejection, and have limited ability to differentiate or transform into specialized cells.

Similarly, the promising advances of stem cell use from a patient's own cord blood, as illustrated by the success stories of Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg from Duke University, also have their limitations. If, for example, a young cord blood recipient's condition should deteriorate after his or her initial treatment or should develop another illness, there simply are not enough cord blood cells left for a second use. The few remaining cells would have to be cloned to get enough cells for future treatment, or stem cells would have to be obtained from another source.

Two of my constituents, Mary Schneider and her son Ryan, are well aware of the potential of cord blood treatments. Her son, diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 2 years of age, has made what appears to be a full recovery after treatment with his own cord blood. Despite the compelling results witnessed by the Schneider family, they also firmly believe and support expanded research of embryonic stem cells to combat disease.

A recent scientific paper about stem cells derived from amniotic fluid has drawn much attention. While this offers an exciting alternative to regenerative medicine therapies, the author of that report, Dr. Anthony Atala, has himself urged that his work on amniotic stem cells will not replace the continued need for investigation into treatments with stem cells derived from embryos.

All of these alternative treatments are just that, alternatives, and are not substitutes for embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a number of sources, including in vitro fertilization. At this very moment, there are over 400,000 embryos being stored in over 400 facilities throughout the United States. The majority of these are reserved for infertile couples. However, many of these embryos will go unused, destined for permanent storage in a freezer or disposal. We should expand and accelerate research using these embryos, just as we should continue to explore the viability of adult stem cell use, cord blood use, and amniotic fluid use.

The promise of embryonic stem cells has come to light in a recent achievement by researchers at Johns Hopkins. They were able to repair damaged nerves and restore mobility in paralyzed rats through embryonic stem cells. One can't help but wonder when, not if, this research will be translated into techniques that will help human patients who have lost the ability to walk.

Of course, any work in this area must have appropriate oversight. Embryonic stem cell research demands comprehensive, thoughtful, and carefully crafted ethical and scientific guidelines. We must not only look to guidance from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration but also to our reason, our morals, and our compassion.

The President's veto of the stem cell bill proposed in the last Congress prevents Government funding beyond 78 previously established stem cell lines. However, recent estimates on the number of viable cell lines bring the numbers down closer to 20. Clearly, we are moving backward in our efforts with these current restrictions. Stymieing embryonic stem cell research is a step in the wrong direction. It closes the door on many Americans awaiting new treatments that could potentially provide a better quality of life or, perhaps, even save their life.

My hope, and the hope of so many in this country, is to provide our researchers with the means to explore the uses of embryonic stem cells so that we can begin to turn the tide on the devastating diseases affecting our Nation and the world.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act, a bill to strengthen community safety and reduce poverty by improving the reintegration of people returning from prison. I am pleased to work with Senators Biden, Specter, Brownback, and Leahy as a cosponsor of this very important bill.

It is estimated that approximately 650,000 prisoners are released into communities across America every year. They have paid their debt to society and now return to their homes and neighborhoods, to their families, and back to their lives.

The problem is that for most of these returning prisoners, their families, neighborhoods, and prior lives often lack what it takes to ensure successful reintegration.

In the best of cases, incarcerated individuals maintain contact with their families and receive rehabilitation services while in prison; they are released to a network of law-abiding peers and quickly find a rewarding job that provides the skills and career development for long- term opportunity. Released prisoners can help support their families, become active in their churches and other community organizations, stay off drugs, away from trouble, on track, and out of jail.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. Up to two-thirds of all released prisoners nationwide end up back in prison within just 3 years. They don't manage to find and keep effective jobs and to care for themselves and their families. Many become a drain on their families and a drain on the system. They are more likely to resort to criminal activity and to perpetuate poverty and family dysfunction.

Their failure is our failure since we all share the high cost, lost opportunities, and other burdens of unemployment, crime, community failure, and cycles of recidivism.

Fortunately, people have been hard at work in hundreds of communities and community organizations all across the country to improve the process of reintegrating prisoners. As one example, the Safer Foundation in Illinois has managed to cut the State's recidivism rate by almost 50 percent for the people who receive Safer's supportive employment services. And Safer has further demonstrated that ex- prisoners who are still employed after 12 months of supportive services have a recidivism rate of lower than 10 percent. One of Safer's program models, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, provides participants with job placement and support services, and matches them with mentors from the neighborhoods where the participants reside. Only 2 percent of the participants in this community and faith-

based program recidivated over a 2-year period.

One of the most effective reentry strategies that Safer, the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, and other nonprofit organizations have devised is transitional jobs, a strategy that worked for welfare to work, and is now working for prison returnees. In a transitional jobs program, former prisoners with employment challenges are hired and paid a wage for legitimate employment in a time-limited, subsidized job. The program not only offers real work, income, skill development, and a letter of reference and experience to add to their resume, it also offers coaching and support services to help participants overcome substantial barriers to employment, such as substance abuse or mental health issues. The program focuses heavily on placement into unsubsidized work at the earliest possible time and job retention services after placement.

The participants in transitional jobs programs gain an immediate source of legitimate income upon release. They also gain paid work experience, access to professional counseling and training services, and a clear path to unsubsidized employment in the community. Employers gain access to a pipeline of supported workers who have demonstrated an ability to do the job and remain employable. Most of all, our communities gain by helping ex-prisoners to contribute positively to family, neighborhood, and the larger environment.

Too many people are caught up in the criminal justice system. Especially within the African-American community where nearly a third of Black males will enter State or Federal prison sometime during their lifetime. Communities are protected and strengthened when people who break the law are punished appropriately. But communities--all communities, including yours and mine--are weakened if we neglect the challenges of rehabilitation and reentry.

To improve the integration of former prisoners and to reduce recidivism is in all of our best interests. A well-designed reentry system can enhance public safety, reduce recidivism, reduce costs, and help prisoners achieve long-term integration. The Second Chance Act is an important effort to strengthen America's communities. The bill is supported by a wide range of organizations, and I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schumer, Menendez, Brown and Cantwell in offering this legislation.

As we respond to the moral question of how we honor our sacred trust to care for our returning servicemembers and veterans, I am reminded of my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times.

He could've had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the GI Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American Dream.

And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters.

Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And nearly twice as many will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this.

Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. Many suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector.

All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us.

This is wrong. It's wrong because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they're abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it's wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right.

These heroes often have not connected to vital housing and supportive services that could make all of the difference. Many more low income veterans and veteran families live at the margins and are at risk of becoming homeless in the absence of permanent housing solutions and supportive services. While it's one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily, it's another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness. And despite the tremendous demand for homeless services, the federal government serves only a tiny fraction of those who are in need.

That's why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans.

So that we don't just leave them to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000, and make this authorization permanent. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live.

Every day in America, there are men and women on street corners with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar, sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home.

This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that so many of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it's time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schumer, Menendez, Brown and Cantwell in offering this legislation.

As we respond to the moral question of how we honor our sacred trust to care for our returning servicemembers and veterans, I am reminded of my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times.

He could've had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the GI Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American Dream.

And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters.

Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And nearly twice as many will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this.

Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. Many suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector.

All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us.

This is wrong. It's wrong because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they're abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it's wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right.

These heroes often have not connected to vital housing and supportive services that could make all of the difference. Many more low income veterans and veteran families live at the margins and are at risk of becoming homeless in the absence of permanent housing solutions and supportive services. While it's one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily, it's another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness. And despite the tremendous demand for homeless services, the federal government serves only a tiny fraction of those who are in need.

That's why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans.

So that we don't just leave them to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000, and make this authorization permanent. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live.

Every day in America, there are men and women on street corners with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar, sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home.

This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that so many of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it's time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.

Mr. President, next week is National Public Health week--a week to raise awareness about the importance of public health all around this Nation. I applaud the efforts of the American Public Health Association in organizing events across the country to assist in this awareness building.

We all know the alarming statistics demonstrating the worsening health status in both children and adults in this Nation. Without intervention, 1 in 3 children born in 2000 can expect to develop diabetes in their lifetime because of obesity resulting from poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles. In my home State of Illinois, we have the highest number of lead-poisoned children in the Nation because of the large amount of older housing in places like Chicago. And asthma rates are on the rise in minority populations, reflecting worsening air quality in many areas.

But what many don't know is how, and the degree to which, changes in the environment are contributing to this health decline. Yet, study after study has shown that environmental factors can be just as problematic as poor genes in causing disease.

While working as a community organizer in the mid-1980s on Chicago's south side, I became intimately aware of the impact of the built environment on public health. One of the neighborhoods in which I worked was bordered by the highly polluted Calumet River on one side and railroad tracks on the other side. People didn't just grow up in this neighborhood--generation after generation stayed in a community with pollutants and extremely limited access to physical activity and healthy

living. This image stays with me and is a motivating force to improve community design that includes all members of society.

The American Public Health Association and countless other expert organizations have shown us that if we make a real commitment to, and investment in, building healthy communities, we can substantially improve the health of children and adults.

There are many simple ways we can do this. Whenever we build a new highway or a new condo complex, we could also build a park where kids can play. Whenever we plan new communities, we could put grocery stores, restaurants and post offices within easy walking distance. We could take steps to ensure that factories or power plants aren't located near schools. We could ensure that kids are not exposed to lead hazards. And we could encourage the development of ``green'' homes and buildings that decrease energy consumption.

And that is why I come to the floor today to reintroduce the Healthy Places Act, and the Healthy Communities Act. The Healthy Places Act would help State and local governments assess the health impact of new policies or projects, whether it's a new highway or a shopping center. And once the health impact is determined, the bill gives grant funding and technical assistance to help address the potential health problems. And while we already know a great deal about the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents, the bill supports additional research so we can look into new environmental health hazards.

The Healthy Communities Act goes hand in hand with the Healthy Places Act, calling for the assessment of the impact of federal policies on environmental health and justice. To make sure our policy decisions are not hurting public health, this legislation requires an Environmental Health Report Card for each state and the Nation at large. Since areas with poor environmental health tend to be disproportionately fiscally poor as well, this legislation establishes health action zones that qualify for grant assistance to address these problems. And since much more remains to be understood in this arena, the bill calls for environmental health research and for environmental health workforce development.

We as a society are moving in the direction of designing communities with healthy living and public health in mind. For example, in Chicago, city leaders recognized the lack of grocery stores in many lower income neighborhoods, forcing families to go without fresh foods. To address this issue, the city's Department of Planning and Development developed a program called Retail Chicago, which used redevelopment funds to attract local developers to build grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods.

While we celebrate the success of such local efforts, we must call upon the Federal Government to provide adequate support. And we must ensure that all segments of society reap the rewards of building and maintaining healthy communities. I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Healthy Places Act and the Healthy Communities Act.

Mr. President, next week is National Public Health week--a week to raise awareness about the importance of public health all around this Nation. I applaud the efforts of the American Public Health Association in organizing events across the country to assist in this awareness building.

We all know the alarming statistics demonstrating the worsening health status in both children and adults in this Nation. Without intervention, 1 in 3 children born in 2000 can expect to develop diabetes in their lifetime because of obesity resulting from poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles. In my home State of Illinois, we have the highest number of lead-poisoned children in the Nation because of the large amount of older housing in places like Chicago. And asthma rates are on the rise in minority populations, reflecting worsening air quality in many areas.

But what many don't know is how, and the degree to which, changes in the environment are contributing to this health decline. Yet, study after study has shown that environmental factors can be just as problematic as poor genes in causing disease.

While working as a community organizer in the mid-1980s on Chicago's south side, I became intimately aware of the impact of the built environment on public health. One of the neighborhoods in which I worked was bordered by the highly polluted Calumet River on one side and railroad tracks on the other side. People didn't just grow up in this neighborhood--generation after generation stayed in a community with pollutants and extremely limited access to physical activity and healthy

living. This image stays with me and is a motivating force to improve community design that includes all members of society.

The American Public Health Association and countless other expert organizations have shown us that if we make a real commitment to, and investment in, building healthy communities, we can substantially improve the health of children and adults.

There are many simple ways we can do this. Whenever we build a new highway or a new condo complex, we could also build a park where kids can play. Whenever we plan new communities, we could put grocery stores, restaurants and post offices within easy walking distance. We could take steps to ensure that factories or power plants aren't located near schools. We could ensure that kids are not exposed to lead hazards. And we could encourage the development of ``green'' homes and buildings that decrease energy consumption.

And that is why I come to the floor today to reintroduce the Healthy Places Act, and the Healthy Communities Act. The Healthy Places Act would help State and local governments assess the health impact of new policies or projects, whether it's a new highway or a shopping center. And once the health impact is determined, the bill gives grant funding and technical assistance to help address the potential health problems. And while we already know a great deal about the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents, the bill supports additional research so we can look into new environmental health hazards.

The Healthy Communities Act goes hand in hand with the Healthy Places Act, calling for the assessment of the impact of federal policies on environmental health and justice. To make sure our policy decisions are not hurting public health, this legislation requires an Environmental Health Report Card for each state and the Nation at large. Since areas with poor environmental health tend to be disproportionately fiscally poor as well, this legislation establishes health action zones that qualify for grant assistance to address these problems. And since much more remains to be understood in this arena, the bill calls for environmental health research and for environmental health workforce development.

We as a society are moving in the direction of designing communities with healthy living and public health in mind. For example, in Chicago, city leaders recognized the lack of grocery stores in many lower income neighborhoods, forcing families to go without fresh foods. To address this issue, the city's Department of Planning and Development developed a program called Retail Chicago, which used redevelopment funds to attract local developers to build grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods.

While we celebrate the success of such local efforts, we must call upon the Federal Government to provide adequate support. And we must ensure that all segments of society reap the rewards of building and maintaining healthy communities. I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Healthy Places Act and the Healthy Communities Act.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that at this point we cannot set aside the pending amendment because we are waiting for a floor manager.

Mr. President, why don't I wait to find out whether it is possible for the Senator from Oregon to potentially call up his amendment. If not, then what I would like to do is speak on my amendment and find out when I can call up my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I speak, if the Senator from Oregon is able to call up his amendment, I be able to call up my amendment as well thereafter.

Mr. President, toward the end of World War II, Norman Rockwell created a cover for the Saturday Evening Post titled ``Homecoming GI.'' It is a picture of a soldier returning from war. He has a duffle bag clutched in his left hand. He is looking up at the back of a brick building with laundry hanging from the back porch. A woman in an apron sees him with outstretched arms, and a young child races down the stairs. Everyone sees that soldier--the neighbors' kids, the man fixing the roof, faces from another window--and everyone welcomes that soldier who has come home from war.

That is what our Nation did for the millions of servicemembers who returned from the Atlantic and the Pacific. We watched them come home in waves. Some were just as strong as their first day in battle; others limped. We saw them crowd Times Square. We saw them walk down Main Street and sit on stoops. My grandfather, who fought in Patton's army, would often speak about this time as America at its finest. That homecoming didn't just happen; we were ready for it.

Long before the beaches of Normandy were stormed and the last battle was fought, in 1943 President Roosevelt said:

Among many other things, we are, today, laying plans for

the return to civilian life of our gallant men and women in

the armed services. They must not be demobilized into an

environment of inflation and unemployment, to a place on a

bread line, or on a corner selling apples. We must, this

time, have plans ready instead of waiting to do a hasty,

inefficient, and ill-considered job at the last moment.

These are the words of wisdom that we ignore at our peril.

Today we have more than 631,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the global war on terror. According to a recent VA health care report, one-third--more than 205,000--have sought treatment at VA health facilities.

Even if the war in Iraq comes to an end soon--and I hope the Senate takes action this week to accomplish that goal--the war will live on with our servicemembers and their families for the rest of our lives.

Unfortunately, over the past month, we have all seen the disturbing pictures of neglect at Walter Reed. We have read about bats and bureaucratic redtape at the VA. We have seen too many stories about our veterans who have been forgotten--not greeted by the Nation that asked them to serve. The time has come for us to see this generation of veterans in all their valor and pain. We should provide them with a plan that is worthy of their courage and will help build back the military they love.

That is what Senator McCaskill and I are trying to do with the amendment we offer today.

First, we provide an additional $41 million to hire more caseworkers to assist servicemembers navigating the military's bureaucracy. The last thing a wounded servicemember should have to face when they return home is a front line of paperwork and delay. Right now, the caseworker- to-service-member ratio at Walter Reed is 1 to 50. Caseworkers help recovering soldiers schedule appointments, take care of their everyday needs, and fill out paperwork. Military caseworkers are overwhelmed. I understand the Army is reducing the caseworker-to-service-member ratio to 1 to 17, and I applaud this move. Our amendment would help the military achieve this goal at all military hospitals.

Our amendment also provides $30 million for the Armed Forces to create an Internet-based system for servicemembers to submit their paperwork electronically. No longer will amputees and servicemembers in wheelchairs have to go to countless offices to fill out duplicative forms only to learn that the forms have been lost in Government bureaucracy.

We also need to do more to increase the number of mental health crisis counselors available to assist recovering servicemembers and their families. Too many servicemembers are returning home with unmet mental health needs--stresses that are often experienced by their family members.

That is why our amendment provides $17 million for more mental health crisis counselors.

While we all praise how our country treated the servicemembers returning from World War II, we must remember the lessons after Vietnam. The landmark National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study was congressionally mandated in 1983, 15 years after the height of that war. The completed report showed the vast majority of Vietnam veterans had successfully acclimated to postwar life.

We can't wait 15 years to plan and prepare for the readjustment needs of the servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The average age of a servicemember deployed since September 11 is 27. The average age of our Guard and Reserves is 33. Sixty percent of those deployed have family responsibilities, and 47 percent of those who have died have left families. Mr. President, 160,000 women have been deployed, and 10 percent of those women are single mothers. These men and women are going to face real challenges in readjusting to normal life.

Our amendment would provide for a study by the National Academy of Sciences of the mental health and readjustment needs of returning servicemembers. This study will assist the Department of Defense, the Veterans' Administration, and Congress in planning for the long-term needs of our veterans.

Last week I met a woman at Walter Reed. She is one of the 160,000 women who have been deployed, and she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of us associate PTSD with men in combat, but many of the women in theater face firsthand dangers in their combat support roles. Driving a truck in Baghdad is one of the most dangerous missions around, and it is considered a support role. Women are witnessing the horrors of improvised explosive devices and the horrors of losing fellow servicemembers, and too many are experiencing the trauma of sexual harassment or abuse.

This young woman was very scared, and she trembled as we spoke. I asked her what we could do to help. She said that she could not handle group therapy sessions; she could only tolerate one-on-one sessions with counselors. Her experience is shared by many women. Treatment for women with PTSD, especially sexual abuse victims, is very different from treatment for men.

That is why as part of our amendment we want to provide $15 million to address the unique mental health needs of women. This funding will ensure the development and implementation of a women's treatment program for mental health conditions, including PTSD. It will also include the hiring and training of sexual abuse counselors so that the servicemembers who suffer from this trauma do not have to suffer in silence. We can do this for the woman I met at Walter Reed and the thousands who suffer like her.

The total cost of our amendment is $103 million--less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total cost of this bill. This is the least we can do for our servicemembers recovering at Walter Reed and other military hospitals.

I am proud that Veterans For America has endorsed our amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of endorsement be printed in the Record.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. At this point I turn the floor back to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and I ask, if the floor managers are prepared, that I be able to call up this amendment after the Senator from Oregon does so with his amendment.

Mr. President, I apologize. I should have allowed----

Mr. President, is it possible for the Senator from Oregon to yield to me briefly so I could call up an amendment? I will call it up, would not discuss it and it can then be set aside and we can immediately go to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 664.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Casey, Baucus, and Durbin be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, we gather on another occasion to bring the Iraq war to its fateful end. While this effort may fall short again, we will continue to try to do what is in the national security of our country.

The Iraq war should never have been authorized. I was proud to say so in 2002, but I am even more proud of the plan I have offered that calls for combat to begin redeploying on May 1 with the goal of all combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

We also must make sure that we are not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that is why this withdrawal should be gradual, and keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wider war in the region and go after al-Qaida and other terrorists.

Those who would have us continue this war in perpetuity like to say that this is a matter of resolve on behalf of the American people. But the American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded on the streets of Fallujah. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort--money that could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland security and our competitive standing as a nation.

No, it has not been a failure of resolve that has led us to this chaos, but a failure of strategy--a strategy that has only strengthened Iran's strategic position; increased threats posed by terrorist organizations; reduced U.S. credibility and influence around the world; and placed Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in the region in greater peril.

Iraq has been a failure of strategy and that strategy must change. It is time to bring a responsible end to this conflict because there is no military solution to this war.

Before we send our best off to battle in the future, we must remember what led us to this day and learn from the principles that follow.

We must remember that ideology is not a foreign policy. We must not embark on war based on untested theories, political agendas or wishful thinking that have little basis in fact or reality. We must focus our efforts on the threats we know exist, and we must evaluate those threats with sound intelligence that is never manipulated for political reasons again.

We must remember that the cost of going it alone is immense. It is a choice we sometimes have to make, but one that must be made rarely and always reluctantly.

We must remember that planning for peace is just as critical as planning for war. Iraq was not just a failure of conception, but a failure of execution. So when a conflict does arise that requires our involvement, we must try to understand that country's history, its politics, its ethnic and religious divisions before our troops ever set foot on its soil.

We must understand that setting up ballot boxes does not automatically create a democracy. Real freedom and real stability come from doing the hard work of helping to build a strong police force, and a legitimate government, and ensuring that people have food, and water, and electricity, and basic services. And we must be honest about

how much of that we can do ourselves and how much must come from the people themselves.

And finally, we must remember that when we send our service men and women to war, we make sure we have given them the training they need, and the equipment that will keep them safe, and a mission they can accomplish. And when our troops come home, it is our most solemn responsibility to make sure they come home to the services, and the benefits, and the care they deserve.

The cause to defend our country and our interests around the world will never end. It will be one of our country's constant threads through the ages. It is our sacred trust to ensure that those moments, those times of great struggle, are the right ones. And when they are not, we must continue to try and end those conflicts for the sake of our country, our service men and women, and the ideals we hold dear.

For these reasons, I strongly support the provision in the supplemental bill that calls for the withdrawal of American combat troops by March 31, 2008, and I will oppose any efforts to strip that provision from the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the budget resolution that the U.S. Senate adopted last Friday.

Every year, Congress considers a budget resolution, setting the Government's priorities for the coming year. For the past 2 years since my election to the Senate, I have been compelled to vote against budget resolutions that I believed were out of touch with our fiscal realities and national priorities. This year, I was proud to support the resolution.

I commend the outstanding leadership of Chairman Conrad, who helped to produce a resolution that makes great progress getting our Nation's priorities back on track. Instead of deepening our fiscal hole with irresponsible tax giveaways to the wealthy, this budget makes an important departure from the Republican budgets of the recent past and brings our budget back into balance. Instead of gutting programs that help our most vulnerable citizens and communities, this budget allows these programs--like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Medicare, COPS, and others-- to keep serving those who rely on the important moral commitments our Nation has made. Instead of budget gimmicks and deferred responsibility, this budget brings greater transparency and responsibility back to Washington.

It does so first by reinstating pay-go. In a Democratic Senate, new mandatory spending, just like new tax cuts, must be paid for by offsetting spending reductions or revenue increases. Pay-go will require tough choices and difficult tradeoffs. We will not be able simply to pass along the debt to future generations for the choices we make today. We will have to be accountable for paying our own bills and collecting our own revenue. Pay-go by itself will not bring our budget back to balance, but it will prevent deficits from getting worse. Pay- go by itself cannot resolve our Nation's long-term liabilities, but it will restore the budget discipline that has been lacking in Washington for too long.

When I travel around the country or talk to families in Illinois, I hear about the same priorities again and again. People from all walks of life--farmers and small businesspeople, teachers and veterans, salespeople and service workers, doctors and senior citizens, people prospering and those struggling at the margins--all share a common set of concerns and aspirations. They want affordable health care for themselves and their children. They want a quality education for their children. They want to retire with dignity. They are concerned about our national security and our domestic security.

Unfortunately, many Americans are not convinced that their voices are heard here in Washington. They are not convinced because the President

proposed a budget that ignores their priorities. They are not convinced because they don't see enough serious efforts to reduce their health care costs or to improve educational opportunities. They are not convinced because it appears that for too long no one in Government has been held accountable for incompetent leadership and neglect of the public interest.

Fortunately, the budget resolution we adopted last week responds to their voices. It demonstrates to families across the Nation that we are once again paying attention to their concerns. They have a reason to start once again to have confidence in their Government.

Let me give a few reasons, why I supported this resolution.

The failure of our Nation to guarantee access to affordable health care for children is shameful, and the President's budget threatened to worsen the situation for children in working families. This budget rejects the President's proposed cuts to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, extends care to 6 million additional eligible children, and makes children's healthcare a priority for Congress.

This budget also makes progress to ensure that preschool children from disadvantaged backgrounds will receive quality care and education; that children, no matter where they go to school, will have an equal opportunity for quality education; and will make college more affordable so that our children can compete in a global marketplace. By rejecting the President's proposed cuts in education and training, this budget shores up the Federal end of the bargain to support No Child Left Behind and support programs that educate individuals with disabilities.

This budget also includes $100 million for grants to establish summer learning programs in local school districts through the Summer Term Education Program. I thank Chairman Conrad for his assistance in getting my amendment to fund these programs included in the final resolution. These grants will help students in early elementary grades by supporting their participation in 6 weeks of summer school. Teachers tell us that students return to school each September at levels below their successes of the previous spring. Educators know this as ``summer learning loss,'' and research has shown that students, on average, lose more than 1 month of reading skills and 2 months of math skills during the summer. The impact of summer learning loss is greatest for children living in poverty, children with learning disabilities, and children who do not speak English at home. The achievement gap in education begins early in life and remains a burden for too many throughout their time in school. The Summer Term Education Program funded by this resolution will help to bridge this gap through structured summer learning opportunities.

The security of our Nation at home and abroad is also a critical priority, and honoring our veterans should be considered a sacred obligation. This budget fully funds our defense and homeland security funding needs and respects our duty to support our veterans. These brave men and women have sacrificed so much for us and for our Nation. Sadly, as uncovered by the Walter Reed scandal, our Government is failing them. This budget makes it possible to provide the quality health care and services that our veterans deserve. We cannot ignore the reality that there are financial and human costs to war. This budget recognizes that reality.

I am also pleased that the budget resolution includes an important bipartisan amendment that I offered with my colleagues, Senators Bunning, Bingaman, Lugar, and Boxer, to triple the administration's recommendation for carbon sequestration. This amendment provides an additional $200 million for Department of Energy efforts on carbon sequestration, for a total of $279 million in that account. Both environmental groups and the coal industry acknowledge the importance of better technology for carbon sequestration and control. The International Panel on Climate Change, environmental groups like NRDC, and the mining industry all are on record that the long-term deep geological storage of carbon is possible and is happening now on a small scale. But for it to occur on a far larger scale, we must redouble Federal efforts to make technologies widespread and economical in the next 15 years. A recent report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recommended a $5 billion program over the next 10 years to achieve that goal. My amendment today provides a significant increase down that path.

Too many Americans say they lack confidence in our tax system because they hear about well-connected individuals and corporations getting away without paying their fair share. I believe this budget will begin to restore the confidence necessary for a fair and effective tax system. Instead of reaching deeper into the pockets of hard-working Americans, this budget will collect taxes where taxes are due. This budget calls for strong new measures to close the tax gap, shut down tax scams, and address offshore tax havens. I am proud of my efforts with Senator Levin and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to stop tax haven abuses, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to improve the fairness of our Tax Code.

The budget resolution we passed last week demonstrates that we can rise above ideology and gimmicks and begin tackling the serious challenges we face as a nation. It demonstrates that vision matters and leadership matters. I am grateful for Chairman Conrad's extraordinary leadership and the terrific work of his talented, dedicated, and hard- working staff. They worked well in committee and on the floor to help assemble a budget resolution that a majority of us in the Senate could vote for in good conscience and with confidence that America's fiscal policies have a chance, at long last, to get back on track.

Mr. President, I rise today joined by my colleague Senator Richard Burr, to reintroduce the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007. This bill will expand and accelerate scientific advancement in the field of genomics, which is already beginning to change the paradigm of medical practice as we know it, and has profound implications for health and health care in this nation.

The ``miracles of medicine'' have been demonstrated since early man. Many of the traditional medicines used today, such as aspirin and morphine, are derivatives of plants ancient people used to treat illnesses and injuries centuries ago. Since those ancient times, our knowledge of medicine and disease has expanded tremendously. Today, modern breakthroughs in the fields of genetics and genomics have uncovered another layer of complexity in the way we treat and prevent disease.

Over the past decade, we have unlocked many of the mysteries about DNA and RNA, their structure, and how their code is translated into the proteins that make up the tissues and organs of the human body. Researchers have also made discoveries about the various functions of DNA such as replication, genetic recombination and regulation, just to name a few, and have developed the necessary technologies to do all of this work.

This knowledge isn't just sitting in books on the shelf nor is it confined to the work benches of laboratories. We have used these research findings to pinpoint the causes of many diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and chronic myelogenous leukemia. Moreover, scientists have translated this genetic knowledge into several treatments and therapies prompting a bridge between the laboratory bench and the patient's bedside.

We've made so many achievements and come a long way in our understanding and application of genetics knowledge. And yet, we are just beginning to realize the full potential of this science to predict the onset of disease, diagnose earlier, and develop therapies that can treat or cure Americans from so many afflictions.

Just 4 years ago, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy reached another major landmark, with the completion of the sequencing of the entire human genome, our genetic blueprint described by many as the Holy Grail of biology and hailed as one of the greatest scientific achievements to date.

The completion of the Human Genome Project has paved the way for a more sophisticated understanding of disease causation. The HGP has expanded focus from the science of genetics, which refers to the study of single genes, to include genomics, which describes the study of all the genes in an individual, as well as the interactions of those genes with each other. The role environmental factors play in promoting disease and the potential influence they have at the genetic level is also an area of interest.

We know that all human beings are 99.9 percent identical in genetic makeup, but differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of disease and response to drugs. Simply put, the study of genomics will help us learn why some people get sick and others do not, and use this information to better prevent and treat disease.

The relatively new field of genomics is key to the practice of personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is the use of genomic and molecular data to better target the delivery of health care, facilitate the discovery and clinical testing of new products, and help determine a patient's predisposition to a particular disease or condition. Personalized medicine represents a revolutionary and exciting change in the fundamental approach and practice of medicine

Pharmacogenomics, or the study of how genes affect a person's response to drugs, is a critical component of personalized medicine. Currently, so-called blockbuster drugs are typically effective in only 40 to 60 percent of patients who take them. Other studies have found that up to 15 percent of hospitalized patients experience a serious adverse drug reaction, causing an estimated 100,000 deaths each year. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to dramatically increase the effectiveness and safety of drugs, both of which are major health care concerns.

We have a growing number of examples of how pharmacogenomics research has helped to save lives. For example, the chemotherapy Purinethol is a lifesaver for kids with leukemia, but in some cases, patients suffer severe, sometimes fatal, side effects. In the 1990's, researchers identified the gene variant that prevents affected patients from properly breaking down Purinethol, allowing doctors to screen patients and adjust dosages for safer use of the drug.

Herceptin, another example, is a breast cancer drug that initially failed in clinical trials. However, researchers discovered that 1 in 4 breast cancers have too many copies of a certain gene, which helps cells grow, divide and repair themselves. Extra copies of this gene cause uncontrolled and rapid growth resulting in tumor formation. As it turns out, Herceptin is an effective drug for patients with this type of cancer, with significantly improved survival for affected women. Herceptin offers a clear illustration of the power of personalized medicine and highlights the importance of incorporating genetic analysis in the development and application of new therapies.

Realizing the promise of personalized medicine will require continued Federal leadership and agency collaboration; expansion and acceleration of genomics research; a capable genomics workforce; incentives to encourage development of genomic tests and therapies; and greater attention to the quality of genetic tests, direct-to-consumer advertising and use of personal genomic information.

The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 will address many of these issues. The bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Interagency Working Group to expand and accelerate genomics research through enhanced communication, collaboration and integration of relevant activities.

Genetic and genomics research will be expanded, to increase the collection of data that will advance both fields, through the support of the biobanking initiative aimed at increasing and improving genomic screening tools, diagnostics and therapeutics. The Secretary will also establish a national distributed database so data finding can be shared.

This bill requests that the Secretary support efforts to improve the adequacy of genetics and genomics training through modernized curricula and review of relevant certifications, and by identifying alternative education options such as distance or on-line learning programs. In addition, the Secretary will promote initiatives to increase the integration of genetics and genomics into all aspects of medical and public health practice, with specific focus on training and guideline development for providers without expertise or experience in the field of genomics.

This bill also requests the National Academies of Science to formally study the development of companion diagnostic tests and to provide expert guidance about the level of incentives and potential approaches to really move this area forward.

Last but not least, the bill focuses on the safety, efficacy and availability of information about genetic tests, including pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomics tests. The Secretary will contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study and make recommendations regarding Federal oversight and regulation of genetic tests. After this study is complete, the Secretary will develop a decision matrix to help determine which types of tests require review and the level of review needed for such tests as well as the responsible agency. The Secretary will also establish a specialty area for molecular and biochemical genetics tests at CMS and direct a review by the CDC of direct-to-consumer marketing practices.

In conclusion, we stand at this new and expansive frontier of personalized medicine we must explore and test the hypotheses and innovations in the area of genomics that can protect and promote our health. Genomics holds unparalleled promise for public health and for medicine, and the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 will help us to fulfill this promise. I

urge my colleagues to support me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today joined by my colleague Senator Richard Burr, to reintroduce the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007. This bill will expand and accelerate scientific advancement in the field of genomics, which is already beginning to change the paradigm of medical practice as we know it, and has profound implications for health and health care in this nation.

The ``miracles of medicine'' have been demonstrated since early man. Many of the traditional medicines used today, such as aspirin and morphine, are derivatives of plants ancient people used to treat illnesses and injuries centuries ago. Since those ancient times, our knowledge of medicine and disease has expanded tremendously. Today, modern breakthroughs in the fields of genetics and genomics have uncovered another layer of complexity in the way we treat and prevent disease.

Over the past decade, we have unlocked many of the mysteries about DNA and RNA, their structure, and how their code is translated into the proteins that make up the tissues and organs of the human body. Researchers have also made discoveries about the various functions of DNA such as replication, genetic recombination and regulation, just to name a few, and have developed the necessary technologies to do all of this work.

This knowledge isn't just sitting in books on the shelf nor is it confined to the work benches of laboratories. We have used these research findings to pinpoint the causes of many diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and chronic myelogenous leukemia. Moreover, scientists have translated this genetic knowledge into several treatments and therapies prompting a bridge between the laboratory bench and the patient's bedside.

We've made so many achievements and come a long way in our understanding and application of genetics knowledge. And yet, we are just beginning to realize the full potential of this science to predict the onset of disease, diagnose earlier, and develop therapies that can treat or cure Americans from so many afflictions.

Just 4 years ago, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy reached another major landmark, with the completion of the sequencing of the entire human genome, our genetic blueprint described by many as the Holy Grail of biology and hailed as one of the greatest scientific achievements to date.

The completion of the Human Genome Project has paved the way for a more sophisticated understanding of disease causation. The HGP has expanded focus from the science of genetics, which refers to the study of single genes, to include genomics, which describes the study of all the genes in an individual, as well as the interactions of those genes with each other. The role environmental factors play in promoting disease and the potential influence they have at the genetic level is also an area of interest.

We know that all human beings are 99.9 percent identical in genetic makeup, but differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of disease and response to drugs. Simply put, the study of genomics will help us learn why some people get sick and others do not, and use this information to better prevent and treat disease.

The relatively new field of genomics is key to the practice of personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is the use of genomic and molecular data to better target the delivery of health care, facilitate the discovery and clinical testing of new products, and help determine a patient's predisposition to a particular disease or condition. Personalized medicine represents a revolutionary and exciting change in the fundamental approach and practice of medicine

Pharmacogenomics, or the study of how genes affect a person's response to drugs, is a critical component of personalized medicine. Currently, so-called blockbuster drugs are typically effective in only 40 to 60 percent of patients who take them. Other studies have found that up to 15 percent of hospitalized patients experience a serious adverse drug reaction, causing an estimated 100,000 deaths each year. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to dramatically increase the effectiveness and safety of drugs, both of which are major health care concerns.

We have a growing number of examples of how pharmacogenomics research has helped to save lives. For example, the chemotherapy Purinethol is a lifesaver for kids with leukemia, but in some cases, patients suffer severe, sometimes fatal, side effects. In the 1990's, researchers identified the gene variant that prevents affected patients from properly breaking down Purinethol, allowing doctors to screen patients and adjust dosages for safer use of the drug.

Herceptin, another example, is a breast cancer drug that initially failed in clinical trials. However, researchers discovered that 1 in 4 breast cancers have too many copies of a certain gene, which helps cells grow, divide and repair themselves. Extra copies of this gene cause uncontrolled and rapid growth resulting in tumor formation. As it turns out, Herceptin is an effective drug for patients with this type of cancer, with significantly improved survival for affected women. Herceptin offers a clear illustration of the power of personalized medicine and highlights the importance of incorporating genetic analysis in the development and application of new therapies.

Realizing the promise of personalized medicine will require continued Federal leadership and agency collaboration; expansion and acceleration of genomics research; a capable genomics workforce; incentives to encourage development of genomic tests and therapies; and greater attention to the quality of genetic tests, direct-to-consumer advertising and use of personal genomic information.

The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 will address many of these issues. The bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Interagency Working Group to expand and accelerate genomics research through enhanced communication, collaboration and integration of relevant activities.

Genetic and genomics research will be expanded, to increase the collection of data that will advance both fields, through the support of the biobanking initiative aimed at increasing and improving genomic screening tools, diagnostics and therapeutics. The Secretary will also establish a national distributed database so data finding can be shared.

This bill requests that the Secretary support efforts to improve the adequacy of genetics and genomics training through modernized curricula and review of relevant certifications, and by identifying alternative education options such as distance or on-line learning programs. In addition, the Secretary will promote initiatives to increase the integration of genetics and genomics into all aspects of medical and public health practice, with specific focus on training and guideline development for providers without expertise or experience in the field of genomics.

This bill also requests the National Academies of Science to formally study the development of companion diagnostic tests and to provide expert guidance about the level of incentives and potential approaches to really move this area forward.

Last but not least, the bill focuses on the safety, efficacy and availability of information about genetic tests, including pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomics tests. The Secretary will contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study and make recommendations regarding Federal oversight and regulation of genetic tests. After this study is complete, the Secretary will develop a decision matrix to help determine which types of tests require review and the level of review needed for such tests as well as the responsible agency. The Secretary will also establish a specialty area for molecular and biochemical genetics tests at CMS and direct a review by the CDC of direct-to-consumer marketing practices.

In conclusion, we stand at this new and expansive frontier of personalized medicine we must explore and test the hypotheses and innovations in the area of genomics that can protect and promote our health. Genomics holds unparalleled promise for public health and for medicine, and the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 will help us to fulfill this promise. I

urge my colleagues to support me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I was hoping for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, on Thursdays, Senator Durbin and I hold a constituent coffee so we can hear from the folks back home. A young man came a few months ago who was about 25, 26 years old. He had been back from Iraq for a year. The first 6 months of that year he spent in a coma. An explosion had shattered his face, blinded him in both eyes, and has left him without the use of one arm.

He told us about how he was going through rehab, and he introduced us to his family. He has a wife and two young daughters like I do, and his wife talked for a bit about the adjustments they were making at home since dad got hurt. I found myself looking at not just him, but at his wife, who loves him so much, and I thought about how their lives were forever changed because of the decision that was carried out 4 years ago.

The sacrifices of war are immeasurable.

I first made this point in the fall of 2002, at the end of the speech I gave opposing the invasion of Iraq. I said then that I certainly do not oppose all wars, but dumb wars--rash wars. Because there is no decision more profound than the one we make to send our brave men and women into harm's way.

I have thought about these words from time to time since that speech, but never so much as the day I saw that young man and his wife.

The sacrifices of war are immeasurable. Too many have returned from Iraq with that soldier's story--with broken bodies and shattered nerves and wounds that even the best care may not heal. Too many of our best have come home shrouded in the flag they loved. Too many moms and dads and husbands and wives have answered that knock on the door that is the hardest for any loved one to hear.

And the rest of us have seen too many promises of swift victories, and dying insurgencies, and budding democracy give way to the reality of a brutal civil war that goes on and on and on to this day.

The sacrifices of war are immeasurable. It was not impossible to see back then that we might arrive at the place we are at today.

I said then that a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics would lead to a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I believed that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale or strong international support would only strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida and erode the good standing and moral authority that took our country generations to build. There were other experts, and leaders, and everyday Americans who believed this too.

I wish we had been wrong. I wish we weren't here talking about this at the beginning of the war's fifth year. Because the consequences of this war have been profound. And the sacrifices have been immeasurable.

Those who would have us continue this war in perpetuity like to say that this is a matter of resolve on behalf of the American people. But the American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded on the streets of Fallujah. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort--money that could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland security and our competitive standing as a nation.

No, it has not been a failure of resolve that has led us to this chaos, but a failure of strategy--a strategy that has only strengthened Iran's strategic position; increased threats posed by terrorist organizations; reduced U.S. credibility and influence around the world; and placed Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in the region in greater peril.

Iraq has not been a failure of resolve, it has been a failure of strategy--and that strategy must change. It is time to bring a responsible end to this conflict is now.

There is no military solution to this war. No amount of U.S. soldiers not 10,000 more, not 20,000 more, not the almost 30,000 more that we now know we are sending--can solve the grievances that lay at the heart of someone else's civil war. Our troops cannot serve as their diplomats, and we can no longer referee their civil war. We must begin a phased withdrawal of our forces starting May 1, with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 30, 2008.

We also must make sure that we are not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that is why this withdrawal should be gradual, and keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after al Qaida and other terrorists.

But it must begin soon. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Iraqis to take ownership of their country and bring an end to their conflict. It is time for our troops to start coming home.

History will not judge the architects of this war kindly. But the books have yet to be written on our efforts to right the wrongs we see in Iraq. The story has yet to be told about how we turned from this moment, found our way out of the desert, and took to heart the lessons of war that too many refused to heed back then.

For it is of little use or comfort to recall past advice and warnings if we do not allow them to guide us in the challenges that lie ahead. Threats loom large in an age where terrorist networks thrive, and there will certainly be times when we have to call on our brave servicemen and women to risk their lives again.

But before we make that most profound of all decisions--before we send our best off to battle, we must remember what led us to this day and learn from the principles that follow.

We must remember that ideology is not a foreign policy. We must not embark on war based on untested theories, political agendas or wishful thinking that has little basis in fact or reality. We must focus our efforts on the threats we know exist, and we must evaluate those threats with sound intelligence that is never manipulated for political reasons again.

We must remember that the cost of going it alone is immense. It is a choice we sometimes have to make, but one that must be made rarely and always reluctantly. That is because America's standing in the world is a precious resource not easily rebuilt. We value the cooperation and goodwill of other nations not because it makes us feel good, but because it makes all the world safer--because the only way to battle 21st century threats that race across borders--threats like terror, and disease, and nuclear proliferation--is

to enlist the resources and support of all nations. To win our wider struggle, we must let people across this planet know that there is another, more hopeful alternative to the hateful ideologies the terrorists espouse--and a renewed America will reflect and champion that vision

We must remember that planning for peace is just as critical as planning for war. Iraq was not just a failure of conception, but a failure of execution, and so when a conflict does arise that requires our involvement, we must do our best to understand that country's history, its politics, its ethnic and religious divisions before our troops ever set foot on its soil.

We must understand that setting up ballot boxes does not a democracy make--that real freedom and real stability come from doing the hard work of helping to build a strong police force, and a legitimate government, and ensuring that people have food, and water, and electricity, and basic services. And we must be honest about how much of that we can do ourselves and how much must come from the people themselves.

Finally, we must remember that when we send our servicemen and women to war, we make sure we have given them the training they need, and the equipment that will keep them safe, and a mission they can accomplish.

We must respect our commanders' advice not just when its politically convenient but even when it is not what we want to hear. And when our troops come home, it is our most solemn responsibility to make sure they come home to the services, and the benefits, and the care they deserve.

As we stand at the beginning of the fifth year of this war, let us remember that young man from Illinois, and his wife, and his daughters, and the thousands upon thousands of families who are living the very real consequences and immeasurable sacrifices that have come from our decision to invade Iraq.

We are so blessed in this country to have so many men and women like this--Americans willing to put on that uniform, and say the hard goodbyes, and risk their lives in a far off land because they know that such consequences and sacrifices are sometimes necessary to defend our country and achieve a lasting peace.

That is why we have no greater responsibility than to ensure that the decision to place them in harm's way is the right one. And that is why we must learn the lessons of Iraq. It is what we owe our soldiers. It is what we owe their families. And it is what we owe our country--now, and in all the days and months to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the events of the last few days in Zimbabwe are outrageous and warrant universal condemnation. It is time for the government of Robert Mugabe to cease its repressive and divisive actions and to allow Zimbabweans to pursue their hopes for legitimate political change and opportunity.

Since Sunday, the world has watched with horror and outrage as the Mugabe government has cracked down on legitimate opposition, detained 50 Zimbabweans attending a peaceful prayer meeting outside of Harare, and brutalized opposition leaders and ordinary citizens alike.

A protestor was shot and killed. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, has been badly beaten and suffered severe head injuries. Lovemore Madhuku, the leader of the National Constitutional Assembly, reportedly has a broken arm and numerous other wounds. Many of their colleagues in opposition remain in Harare hospitals.

The Government has responded to the outrage prompted by these attacks on human rights and legitimate expression with characteristic bluster. Once again, we are told that the opposition is to blame. Once again, we hear ominous warnings that the opposition is ``set to pay a very heavy price, regardless of who they are.'' Meanwhile, the true cause of the strife--President Mugabe's disastrous rule--remains unaddressed. To the dismay even of his own party, he has declared his intention to run for a new term in office in 2008.

These events are shocking, but sadly they do not come as a surprise. For years, it has been increasingly apparent that the Mugabe government is interested only in its own survival and enrichment, not the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe. International observers--including the United States--concluded that the Presidential election of 2002 and the parliamentary elections of 2005 were not free and fair.

The State Department reported just last week in its country report on human rights in Zimbabwe that: ``The government engaged in the pervasive and systematic abuse of human rights. The ruling party's dominant control and manipulation of the political process through intimidation and corruption effectively negated the right of citizens to change their government.''

Meanwhile, the Government's corruption and mismanagement has brought the Zimbabwean economy to the brink of ruin. Estimates place inflation at a world high of 1,700 percent, and the IMF forecasts that this could pass 4,000 percent by the end of the year. Unemployment stands at 80 percent. Poverty rates are soaring. Zimbabwe's economy is shrinking faster than any other country in the world that is not at war.

I am heartened, though, that this political and economic deterioration has been met with growing calls for change.

Within Zimbabwe, the opposition to Mugabe is showing resilience and courage. Factions of Mugabe's own party have indicated that they want a transition in 2008, and ordinary citizens are increasingly voicing their hopes for a new chapter.

Beyond Zimbabwe, frustration with the Mugabe government is mounting. The head of the African Union has expressed his embarrassment at the situation in Zimbabwe. South Africa and the Southern African Development Community, which have been slow to criticize Zimbabwe in the past, seem to be losing patience. The United States, European Union, and the United Nations were swift in condemning this latest outrage and have been consistent in their calls for change.

The United States must continue to stand strongly against the Mugabe government's abuses of power in Zimbabwe. We must join with our European allies, the United Nations, and--most importantly--the countries and institutions of the region to press for positive change in Zimbabwe. That means a peaceful democratic transition in 2008 and support for economic growth and opportunity--including the lifting of sanctions--once the dark cloud of Mugabe's rule is lifted and Zimbabweans are able again to reach for the new horizon they deserve.

I call on President Mugabe to immediately release all political detainees and repeal the ban on political rallies, to end the use of violence and torture in the jails, permit a free media and abide by the rule of law. His government must also urgently address the humanitarian crisis that has put the mass of his population in dire need of assistance.

Zimbabwe is a nation rich in history and rich in resources. Its talented people have known great hardship just as they have achieved great heights. When Robert Mugabe became President over a quarter century ago, there was great hope. Zimbabwe had emerged from British rule, claiming its freedom and its future for itself.

Sadly, the freedom and opportunity for which Zimbabweans fought have been eclipsed in the last decade by repression and uncertainty. Instead of peaceful self-determination, we see Zimbabweans intimidated and beaten in the streets. Instead of the responsible management of Zimbabwe's state institutions, we see state-sanctioned corruption, violence, and property seizures. Instead of economic self-sufficiency, we see what was once one of Africa's most promising economies in a free-fall.

Yet I am confident that the people of Zimbabwe will once again claim for themselves a better future. As they seek to hold their leaders accountable, as they try to rebuild their lives and their country, they must know that they have a strong and steady friend in the United States. The events of the last few days--and the Mugabe regime--must belong to the past, and the United States must work with the international community to help all Zimbabweans forge a better future.

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.