Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the Senate's confirmation of Leon Panetta to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Panetta is well-known to many of us for his long, distinguished record of public service, including eight terms in Congress and service as a presidential chief of staff.

Mr. Panetta knows well the inner workings of government at the highest levels. He has an impeccable reputation for integrity, and I am confident that he is the right man at the right time to lead the CIA.

Leon Panetta is a product of my home State, California, born in Monterey. His parents, Carmelo and Carmelina, ran a local cafe and later purchased a walnut ranch, which he still owns. He majored in political science at Santa Clara University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1960.

In 1963, he received his JD from Santa Clara University as well. After law school, he served in the United States Army from 1964 to 1966, and attended the Army Intelligence School.

In 1966, Mr. Panetta joined the Washington, DC, staff of Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel of California.

In 1969, he served as Director of the Office of Civil Rights in the Office of

Health, Education and Welfare in the Nixon Administration.

From 1970 to 1971, he worked as the executive assistant to New York City Mayor John Lindsay. Afterward, he returned to Monterey, to private law practice.

In 1976, he ran and won election to the U.S. House of Representatives, and he served in the House for 16 years. During that time, he also served as chairman of the Budget Committee.

In 1993, he joined the Clinton administration as head of the Office of Management and Budget. In July 1994, Mr. Panetta became President Clinton's chief of staff.

He served in that capacity until January 1997, when he returned to California to found and lead the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University Monterey Bay.

Mr. Panetta and his wife, Sylvia, have three sons and five grandchildren.

It is very fair and safe for me to say that he has a reputation for intelligence and integrity.

In speaking with Mr. Panetta and President Obama multiple times, I am convinced that Mr. Panetta will surround himself with career professionals, including Deputy Director Stephen Kappes. He has committed to keeping the senior leadership of the CIA in place, but at the same time has vowed to bring new policies and new leadership to the Agency.

I know Mr. Panetta has immersed himself in CIA matters since being nominated, and his top priority, if confirmed, will be to conduct a complete review of all the Agency's activities.

Moreover, I strongly believe that the CIA needs a Director who will take the reins of the Agency and provide the supervision and oversight so that this agency, which operates in a clandestine world of its own, must have.

President Obama has made clear that his selection of Leon Panetta was intended as a clean break from the past--a break from secret detentions and coercive interrogations; a break from outsourcing its work to a small army of contractors; and a break from analysis that was not only wrong, but the product of bad practice that helped lead our Nation to war.

President Obama said when announcing this nomination that this will be a CIA Director ``who has my complete trust and substantial clout.''

This is a hugely important but difficult post. The CIA is the largest civilian intelligence agency with the most disparate of missions.

It produces the most strategic analysis of the intelligence agencies and it is the center for human intelligence collection. It is unique in that it carries out covert action programs, implementing policy through intelligence channels. The Intelligence Committee held confirmation hearings on Mr. Panetta's nomination on February 5 and 6.

Our responsibility was clear: to make sure that Leon Panetta will be a Director who makes the CIA effective in what it does--but also to make sure that it operates in a professional manner that reflects the true values of this country.

The committee did its work. It questioned Mr. Panetta on a broad array of issues he will confront as Director of the CIA, and it submitted followup questions, all of which were answered.

These questions, and Mr. Panetta's answers, can be found at the Intelligence Committee Web site.

I urge all Members of the Senate, as well as the public, to review them in order to obtain a better understanding of his views about the office to which he has been nominated.

I am pleased to report that yesterday the Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to report favorably the nomination of Leon Panetta to be the Director of the CIA. He has the confidence of the committee, and we believe we will be able to work closely with him during his tenure.

Leon Panetta will mark a new beginning for the CIA as its next Director.

He has the integrity, the drive and the judgment to ensure that the CIA fulfills its mission of producing information critical to our national security, without sacrificing our national values.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, to re-introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act.

The bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Brown, Cardin, Casey, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Mikulski, Menendez, Merkley, Sanders, Stabenow, and Whitehouse.

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

The bill also requires the President to submit a report to the appropriate Congressional committees on the plan to clean up unexploded cluster bombs.

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

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

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

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

Indeed, the human toll of these weapons has been terrible:

In Laos, approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured by U.S. cluster munitions since the Vietnam War ended.

In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991.

In the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 200 civilians.

During the 2003 invasion of Baghdad, the last time the U.S. used cluster munitions, these weapons killed more civilians than any other type of U.S. weapon.

The U.S. 3rd Infantry Division described cluster munitions as ``battlefield losers'' in Iraq, because they were often forced to advance through areas contaminated with unexploded duds.

During the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. cluster munitions caused more U.S. troop casualties than any single Iraqi weapon system, killing 22 U.S. servicemen.

Yet we have seen significant progress in the effort to protect innocent civilians from these deadly weapons since we first introduced this legislation in the 110th Congress.

In December, 95 countries came together to sign the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster bombs and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within 8 years.

This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan.

In 2007, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a provision from our legislation contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibiting the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the fiscal year 2009 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations bill renewing the ban for another year.

I am confident this ban will be included in an fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill.

These actions will help save lives. But much more work remains to be done and significant obstacles remain.

For one, the United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty.

The Pentagon continues to believe that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.'' It would prefer that the United States work within the Geneva-based Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, CCW, to negotiate limits on the use of cluster munitions.

Yet these efforts have been going on since 2001 and it was the inability of the CCW to come to any meaningful agreement which prompted other countries, led by Norway, to pursue an alternative treaty through the Oslo process.

A lack of U.S. leadership in this area has given cover to other major cluster munitions producing nations--China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and Egypt--who have refused to sign the Oslo Convention as well.

Recognizing the United States could not remain silent in the face of international efforts to restrict the use of cluster bombs, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June 2008 stating that after 2018, the use, sale and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited.

The policy is a step in the right direction, but under the terms of this new policy, the Pentagon will still have the authority to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for the next ten years.

That is unacceptable and runs counter to our values.

The United States maintains an arsenal of an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions which have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

What does that say about us, that we are still prepared to use, sell and transfer these weapons with well known failure rates?

The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist, that meet the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait ten years?

This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than one percent.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' new policy essentially postpones any meaningful action for another ten years.

That means, if we do nothing, by 2018 close to twenty years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians.

We can do better.

Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by ten years. For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster bombs with failure rates of more than one percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster bombs in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002.

We introduced this legislation to make this moratorium permanent for the entire U.S. arsenal of cluster munitions.

We introduced this legislation for children like Hassan Hammade.

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

He said:

I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it

was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of

metal.

All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play

on the main roads or in our homes.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We should do whatever we can to protect more innocent children and other civilians from these dangerous weapons.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, to re-introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act.

The bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Brown, Cardin, Casey, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Mikulski, Menendez, Merkley, Sanders, Stabenow, and Whitehouse.

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

The bill also requires the President to submit a report to the appropriate Congressional committees on the plan to clean up unexploded cluster bombs.

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

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

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

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

Indeed, the human toll of these weapons has been terrible:

In Laos, approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured by U.S. cluster munitions since the Vietnam War ended.

In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991.

In the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 200 civilians.

During the 2003 invasion of Baghdad, the last time the U.S. used cluster munitions, these weapons killed more civilians than any other type of U.S. weapon.

The U.S. 3rd Infantry Division described cluster munitions as ``battlefield losers'' in Iraq, because they were often forced to advance through areas contaminated with unexploded duds.

During the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. cluster munitions caused more U.S. troop casualties than any single Iraqi weapon system, killing 22 U.S. servicemen.

Yet we have seen significant progress in the effort to protect innocent civilians from these deadly weapons since we first introduced this legislation in the 110th Congress.

In December, 95 countries came together to sign the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster bombs and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within 8 years.

This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan.

In 2007, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a provision from our legislation contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibiting the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the fiscal year 2009 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations bill renewing the ban for another year.

I am confident this ban will be included in an fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill.

These actions will help save lives. But much more work remains to be done and significant obstacles remain.

For one, the United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty.

The Pentagon continues to believe that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.'' It would prefer that the United States work within the Geneva-based Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, CCW, to negotiate limits on the use of cluster munitions.

Yet these efforts have been going on since 2001 and it was the inability of the CCW to come to any meaningful agreement which prompted other countries, led by Norway, to pursue an alternative treaty through the Oslo process.

A lack of U.S. leadership in this area has given cover to other major cluster munitions producing nations--China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and Egypt--who have refused to sign the Oslo Convention as well.

Recognizing the United States could not remain silent in the face of international efforts to restrict the use of cluster bombs, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June 2008 stating that after 2018, the use, sale and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited.

The policy is a step in the right direction, but under the terms of this new policy, the Pentagon will still have the authority to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for the next ten years.

That is unacceptable and runs counter to our values.

The United States maintains an arsenal of an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions which have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

What does that say about us, that we are still prepared to use, sell and transfer these weapons with well known failure rates?

The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist, that meet the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait ten years?

This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than one percent.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' new policy essentially postpones any meaningful action for another ten years.

That means, if we do nothing, by 2018 close to twenty years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians.

We can do better.

Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by ten years. For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster bombs with failure rates of more than one percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster bombs in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002.

We introduced this legislation to make this moratorium permanent for the entire U.S. arsenal of cluster munitions.

We introduced this legislation for children like Hassan Hammade.

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

He said:

I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it

was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of

metal.

All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play

on the main roads or in our homes.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We should do whatever we can to protect more innocent children and other civilians from these dangerous weapons.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009.

This is a bill that is very important to me and to many other Members of Congress. It would authorize the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian to record and preserve an oral history of the Civil Rights Movement.

The bill is cosponsored by Senators Alexander, Bennett, Cochran, Kennedy, and Schumer. In the 110th Congress, then-Senator Clinton introduced it, and I want to thank Secretary Clinton very much for her work on behalf of the bill.

Last month, the United States celebrated the inauguration of our first African-American President. It was a historic event, and it was one more example that we, the American people, can live up to our highest ideals and aspirations. Although there is much left to be done, critical progress has been made.

As we reflect on this historical moment, it is important for us to remember that it did not happen all at once. As Senator Robert Kennedy once said, ``It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped.''

Our society today would not be possible without the extraordinary people who dedicated themselves to the Civil Rights Movement.

Whether on a bus in Montgomery, at a lunch counter in Greensboro, in a high school in Little Rock, or on a bridge in Selma, these courageous individuals risked their lives to bring real and necessary change to our country.

The bill I am introducing today would help to ensure that we never forget their stories.

The bill would direct the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History to record--in audio and video--firsthand stories from the Civil Rights Movement. Like the Veterans History Project started by the Library of Congress in 2000, these recordings would document the memories of Civil Rights pioneers for generations to come. Students would be able to hear the stories in their own voices, and historians would have primary sources on which to draw for research.

We need to start recording this history as soon as possible. In the last three years alone, we have lost Civil Rights leaders like Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King--whose contributions would have been invaluable.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of the project be a maximum of approximately $4 million over 5 years, and that much of this cost will be offset by private donations. Even at its maximum cost, the project will be well worth it.

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

There beinig no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009.

This is a bill that is very important to me and to many other Members of Congress. It would authorize the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian to record and preserve an oral history of the Civil Rights Movement.

The bill is cosponsored by Senators Alexander, Bennett, Cochran, Kennedy, and Schumer. In the 110th Congress, then-Senator Clinton introduced it, and I want to thank Secretary Clinton very much for her work on behalf of the bill.

Last month, the United States celebrated the inauguration of our first African-American President. It was a historic event, and it was one more example that we, the American people, can live up to our highest ideals and aspirations. Although there is much left to be done, critical progress has been made.

As we reflect on this historical moment, it is important for us to remember that it did not happen all at once. As Senator Robert Kennedy once said, ``It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped.''

Our society today would not be possible without the extraordinary people who dedicated themselves to the Civil Rights Movement.

Whether on a bus in Montgomery, at a lunch counter in Greensboro, in a high school in Little Rock, or on a bridge in Selma, these courageous individuals risked their lives to bring real and necessary change to our country.

The bill I am introducing today would help to ensure that we never forget their stories.

The bill would direct the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History to record--in audio and video--firsthand stories from the Civil Rights Movement. Like the Veterans History Project started by the Library of Congress in 2000, these recordings would document the memories of Civil Rights pioneers for generations to come. Students would be able to hear the stories in their own voices, and historians would have primary sources on which to draw for research.

We need to start recording this history as soon as possible. In the last three years alone, we have lost Civil Rights leaders like Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King--whose contributions would have been invaluable.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of the project be a maximum of approximately $4 million over 5 years, and that much of this cost will be offset by private donations. Even at its maximum cost, the project will be well worth it.

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

There beinig no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Reid's amendment 525, which I cosponsored.

This amendment will improve renewable energy permitting and give renewable energy companies grants to replace the renewable energy tax credits.

Specifically, Senator Reid's amendment would appropriate $25 million to the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior to assist in renewable energy permitting; establish pilot offices in Western States to focus on renewable energy permitting, to be funded with oil and gas royalties; allow projects utilizing new renewable energy technology, not just ``commercial'' technology, to apply for Federal renewable energy loan guarantees; and establish a DOE grant program for renewable energy development, to substitute for the solar investment tax credit and the renewable production tax credit.

Let me explain why this amendment is needed.

First, let me discuss permitting.

First, Senator Reid and I propose $25 million to assist in renewable energy permitting. In California, BLM has more than 200 solar applications pending, and it has yet to complete a single application review.

The Bureau is overwhelmed, and it needs a relatively small investment in resources to ensure that it can quickly analyze how these project proposals impact water resources, endangered species habitat, and wilderness areas. Without these resources, we simply will not build the renewable energy projects that we need in the West.

In addition to adding financial resources, the amendment would establish pilot offices in Western States to focus on renewable energy permitting.

Senator Tester and I introduced legislation to establish these offices, and BLM established them administratively in January. The offices would be funded with oil and gas royalties, to assure that they have the resources necessary to process the rapid influx of applications.

Second, let me discuss financing.

The amendment would also modify the title 17 renewable loan guarantee program so that it may guarantee loans for emerging renewable technology, not just ``commercial'' technology.

Solar thermal facilities, the most advanced wind turbines, and enhanced geothermal projects are often the most economical renewable projects available, but they are considered emerging because they are the first of their type in the world.

The loan guarantee program in this legislation would exclude them. This change allows them to compete with wind projects.

Finally, let me explain the need for a grant program to replace the current tax credit system.

The amendment would establish a DOE grant program for renewable energy development. Grants would equal the value of the solar investment tax credit or the renewable production tax credit, which it would replace. For the next 2 years, renewable projects could claim the grants at a time when tax equity markets simply cannot support significant renewable energy production.

Last year Congress made a significant investment in solar and other renewable energy by passing a long term extension to the renewable energy investment and production tax credits.

But renewable energy companies must go to big banks--JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, or Bank of America--in order to use these tax credits, and today those banks don't have profits and are sending renewable developers away emptyhanded.

The ``tax equity'' market has gone from $5 billion to $2 billion in 1 year. One good wind developer recently told me he went to 42 banks and couldn't find a partner.

The few banks still in the business are increasing their profit margin. This is all transaction costs, benefiting the bankers and the lawyers who write these contracts but not renewable energy development. As the bank's cut goes up, the cost of renewable energy goes up as well.

As a result, solar and wind companies are contracting. Some have shut down, some have scaled back, but no one is building renewable energy infrastructure. We are losing both green jobs and the fight against climate change.

The DOE grants program in this amendment would replace the tax credits.

The shrinking tax equity market would no longer harm renewable energy developers, who could get back to the business of shifting the United States away from coal and gas towards renewable energy.

According to a study by Navigant Consulting in 2008, the 8-year extension to the solar investment tax credit should produce 276,000 jobs by 2016.

Mr. President, 150,000 of these jobs were forecast to be located in California. If the freeze in the available credit for solar project development is allowed to continue, not only will these jobs not materialize, but current ``green jobs'' will be lost.

This legislation provides some assistance to renewable energy, but without this amendment, I fear the bill will not have its intended effect of spurring immediate construction of renewable energy projects.

Right now renewable energy projects--which are massive capital investments--are not being built. Developers face a series of problems: Many projects await permits from DOE, the Forest Service, and the Department of Interior. Developers cannot use tax equity markets in order to utilize Federal tax credits, and without these tax credits, projects cannot secure private financing.

This amendment--put simply--addresses these three major challenges that prevent us from building renewable energy projects in the United States.

To address permitting, it establishes offices at BLM whose only job will be to evaluate and issue permit decisions.

To address the tax issue, this amendment creates a DOE grant program that should cost the Treasury nothing we didn't already expect to spend. But it will allow projects to proceed that would not be able to without it.

Finally, to address the credit crisis, this amendment modifies the loan guarantee program to assure that innovative ideas also qualify.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.

I thank my colleagues for their efforts on this issue. I agree that comparative effectiveness research holds great promise to improve medical care by giving physicians and patients valuable information on treatment options.

It is my understanding that the new Federal coordinating council included in the language is intended to coordinate the comparative effectiveness research efforts taking place across Federal agencies and with funds we are providing in this bill. However, there is some concern that the language, as currently written, allows the council to expand its activities beyond mere coordination. I think my colleagues would agree that the purpose of the council is to coordinate comparative effectiveness research activities with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.

That is accurate. The $23 million in funding for trail maintenance could be used for any of the eight National Scenic Trails in this country. Many of these trails are in disrepair, have unsafe crossings and uncompleted sections that could be repaired with this funding, creating jobs and generating economic value for surrounding communities.

Yes, that is our intent. All of the National Scenic Trails would be eligible for this funding, which would create jobs, generate economic value, and provide healthy recreational opportunities.

First, I would like to commend my colleagues for bringing this important matter before the Senate. EPA estimates that combined sewage overflows are responsible for releasing more than a trillion gallons of untreated and undertreated wastewater into our Nation's water bodies every year. I believe that additional funding provided through the Recovery Act for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds program will help alleviate the combined sewage overflow problem. I share the Senator's belief that the EPA should strongly encourage the completion of combined sewage overflow projects and I look forward to working with the Senator to address this serious problem in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I have had very little to do with this bill in the sense of writing it. I think most of us feel somewhat the same way. I am growing increasingly concerned about the bill, as to whether it is really going to be a stimulus. I come from a State which has more people unemployed today than the population of a dozen States; a State where the breadlines are growing, where the need for assistance is growing, where the State has a huge deficit, where counties are unable to fund their operating maintenance, where all capital projects have stopped, and where the State is now furloughing employees. I think while we dither, Rome burns. This crisis is so multidimensional and the dominoes are falling so much more rapidly than any of us thought and they are pushed from so many different points.

The fact is that people cannot get credit--credit for your big corporations to open a new hotel; credit, if you are a small employer, to pay your payroll. Credit remains frozen. The housing crisis continues to work its problems.

What, in my view, a stimulus is not, candidly speaking, is a tax package. I do not believe in this economy tax cuts are stimulus. The current state of the package, as I understand it, is that tax cuts are roughly 40 percent of the package; 20 percent is local assistance, State and local assistance; 15 percent is safety net spending; 15 percent is infrastructure spending--that is all--and 10 percent is other spending.

I do not know how many jobs are going to come out of this because it is my belief that people's buying patterns have changed.

This morning, a number of my colleagues talked about a report from the Congressional Budget Office, and what they did not do is they did not quote from certain parts of it. I would like to quote on what they found. Here it is:

A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a

smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct

purchase or transfers, because a significant share of the tax

cut would probably be saved.

As a matter of fact, we have evidence of that. Last year, we approved more than $130 billion in tax cuts, primarily through a $600-per-person tax refund. After all of that money was spent in two tranches going out, there was little or no perceptible impact on the economy.

But we do not learn. In fact, study after study shows that upper income taxpayers are less likely to spend the refund checks they receive than those with low incomes.

According to a recent CRS analysis, tax cuts are likely to have a ``diminished stimulus effect.''

I point out that at the end of the day, I think there have been some significant layoffs. All along the retail industry, whether it is Starbucks or whether it is various retail establishments; like Gottschalks department stores--38 stores in California--going into bankruptcy; whether you have banks closing; whether you have Macy's laying off 10,000 people, buying patterns have changed. I read a study where people are not buying as much toothpaste. That is an indication that there is an angst out there, a worry about this economy.

The point of this package is to get jobs out to people. I reserve the right, at the end of the day, to vote against a package that I don't think puts those jobs out there. That is my point.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment Senator Murray has just sent to the desk which would add $25 billion to the infrastructure portion of the bill. I thank her for her work on this amendment.

I also thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Inouye. Senator Inouye became chairman of the committee approximately 1 week before this bill came out of committee, so it really represents a great deal of work in a very short period of time, and I believe he is to be commended for that.

In my view, as a former mayor, a stimulus means job production, very simply. As this bill stands, only 16 percent of the stimulus package goes toward infrastructure, which is the physical basis on which a nation's economy functions, while 39 percent would finance tax cuts.

To be very candid with you, I am one of those who do not believe tax cuts are necessarily stimulative. The reason I don't believe that is because I believe the buying habits of Americans in this particular crisis have changed. I don't think $80 a month in the form of a tax credit is going to change that. We put $135 billion out in a rebate, and less than 15 percent of it, it was estimated--by the best chance-- went into the economy. So I really worry that this package is tax cut heavy and doesn't do what it should do with respect to the production of jobs to repair this physical base on which a nation's economy can function.

The amendment, as Senator Murray said, is cosponsored by 21 of us. I very much appreciate all of the Senators' support. It adds $18 billion for highway and rail. Those of you who have ridden high-speed rail from Tokyo and Osaka know that it was built in the mid-sixties. Here we are in 2009, and we don't have a real high-speed rail, either by MAGLEV or steel wheel, anywhere in this country today. If you travel through Europe, you travel on fast trains. If you go from Pudong in Shanghai to the airport by transit, you can take a MAGLEV system, which does 30 miles in less than 20 minutes. Our highways are jammed. People go to work in gridlock. The newspaper this morning reported that metropolitan Washington, D.C. has some of the highest commuter travel times in America.

We need to repair this infrastructure, and the beauty of doing it as part of this package is that it puts people to work immediately on projects that are shovel ready. So I believe $18 billion in this bill, which is for highway and rail, and an additional $7 billion in revolving loan funds for clean water and sewer projects is really necessary. You might say: $25 billion--what does that do in this package? I will tell you what it does. It raises the percentage of infrastructure from 16 to 19 percent. That is all it does. That is how big this package is and how little of it is really the kind of infrastructure we should be producing.

For the water infrastructure portion alone, this amendment could create as many as 154,000 additional jobs beyond that which is estimated in the stimulus package. The transportation portion of the amendment would add 501,000 jobs. So, as Senator Murray said, in total, this amendment would create a net new 655,000 jobs--jobs that are desperately needed to put Americans back to work and revive our country.

I come from a State that is big. It is the seventh or eighth largest economy in the world. It has stopped all public works projects, and it is furloughing State employees. It is in deep trouble. Where California goes, because it is such a big part of the economic infrastructure of this Nation, affects other States as well.

I want to expand a bit as chairman of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee of Appropriations because I am very concerned about what I believe has been insufficient funding for clean water and sewer projects. We put over 50 percent of our allocation into these projects. It wasn't enough. We have a huge water infrastructure problem in America. Our sewer systems are deteriorating; they are old and they are broken. Each year, aging and overburdened sewer and storm water systems overflow; they break and release more than 860 billion gallons of partially treated sewage into our rivers and streams, polluting them. Last year, contamination from these spills and overflows was the second leading cause of beach closings and water health advisories nationwide--more than 4,000 closings and advisories--and the problem is only getting worse.

Investment in our Nation's water systems has not kept pace with the population growth or sprawling development.

The Government Accountability Office and EPA report that the Nation faces a $300 billion to $500 billion water and wastewater funding gap over the next 20 years. So by investing now in needed water and wastewater infrastructure, we can, in fact, create millions of jobs here at home and better protect human health.

With this amendment, the total for the water and wastewater State revolving fund will be $13 billion, with $10 billion for wastewater projects and $3 billion for drinking water projects. As I said, the EPA, which oversees this Federal program, has indicated to us that they can move these additional dollars quickly. These funds will go directly to the States, which in turn make them available to local communities. Because the law is a revolving loan fund, there is language in this that effectively makes these loans grants to States. The $6 billion currently in the bill will fund 1,290 wastewater projects and 769 drinking water projects. By increasing this funding by $7 billion, for the total of $13 billion, this amendment would triple the number of wastewater projects to 3,226 and provide 30 percent more drinking water projects.

The States will choose these projects based on their most urgent needs. Here are some of the projects that have been funded in the past through this program:

The aquifer in Rockland County, NY, was being polluted by sewer waste from septic tanks. The local sewer district used $80 million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to replace these septic systems with a new collection system and wastewater treatment plant. The county also installed advanced treatment technology to protect the millions of residents downstream of its facility.

The town of Easton, MD, was flushing huge nutrient loads into the Chesapeake Bay. It received a $20.5 million loan to expand its wastewater system to install enhanced nutrient-removal technologies and now exceeds Chesapeake Bay's water quality goals.

A subdivision with septic systems in Lexington County, SC, needed a connection to the nearest town's public sewer. The area septic systems had been improperly maintained and were in jeopardy of contaminating the groundwater. Thanks to funding from this program, it has a connection.

In my State, Orange County is using $162.9 million to implement a ground water replenishment system, the largest of its kind in the world. Highly treated wastewater will be pumped into basins, where it will percolate back into the ground. This project not only improves water quality but reliability and supply in an area facing long-term drought.

This amendment, as I said, waives the State match requirement in an effort to maximize the use of the funds. This funding, which can be put to use immediately, will assist the municipalities of our Nation in upgrading their wastewater systems and ending the damage to our environment. But it is not only these benefits that speak to the merits of increasing this funding--and we could do more; we could do at least another $3 billion more under EPA's ability to move the money.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that every dollar spent on wastewater infrastructure generates a return of $3 to $7 that flows back directly into the economy. The Commerce Department estimates that for each additional job created in the water and sewer industry, 3.68 jobs are created in all industries. So it has a ripple effect.

The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators indicates that nearly $20 billion of shovel-ready wastewater infrastructure projects await financing today throughout the country.

In conclusion, Mr. President, the problem I have with this package is that, in my view, it is heavy on tax cuts which go right to the bottom line of the deficit and the debt and will reduce allocations to appropriators to fund the next 2 years' budgets, unless we drive this country deeper into debt and deficit. It is shy on the infrastructure, which is the stimulus projects.

Let me make one other point on the change of America's buying habits which I believe has taken place. If you look at people actually laid off from Caterpillar and you look at retail closures--the latest of which is Macy's, as of last night, indicating that they are terminating 7,000 people from their jobs--you will see that people are buying less. It is reflected in automobile sales, it is reflected in tractor sales, and it is reflected in shopping and electronic equipment shopping.

I believe the important thing of this package is to put people back to work. My State has 1.7 million people who are out of work. We need to do those things that are necessary, such as extend unemployment insurance, protect the safety net, and have a massive program to rebuild what is a failing economic infrastructure in this country, so that America can compete in this new millennium.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do not believe I will use it, but if I might have 10 minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I respectfully strongly disagree with the distinguished Senator.

In my 16 years on the Judiciary Committee, I have never seen a more qualified nominee. Mr. Holder has been a prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice; a Superior Court judge for the District of Columbia; the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia; an attorney in private practice; and the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the No. 2 position in the Department. I do not think you can beat these credentials.

Now, people find one two decisions out of a multiplicity of decisions Mr. Holder has made with which they disagree--and they are welcome to disagree--but that does not destroy his value or his worth as Attorney General.

President Reagan first appointed Holder to be a Superior Court judge, and President Clinton then named him U.S. attorney and Deputy Attorney General. On all three occasions, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

Today, his nomination is being broadly supported by Members of both parties. We have received letters from people such as the former FBI Director, Louis Freeh; former Deputy Attorneys General Jim Comey, Paul McNulty, and Larry Thompson; former Solicitor General and Republican Ted Olsen; and President George H.W. Bush's Attorney General, William Barr.

Virtually every single law enforcement agency in the country has come out to endorse him: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Attorneys General of over 30 States, the National Criminal Justice Association, and on and on.

He has unified support among the civil rights community: the NAACP, the Asian-American Justice Center, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Human Rights Campaign.

It is rare to see such bipartisan support for a candidate. In Mr. Holder's case, I believe it is very well deserved. He is a man of integrity, intelligence, humility, and heart.

I remember our prior Attorney General, Mr. Gonzales, making the statement that he wore two hats. At the time he said it, I did not realize what the implication was. He stated, and on the record, that he represented the President of the United States and he represented the people of this Nation.

Well, we saw in spades what a double-hatted Attorney General can do. We saw the politicization of that Department. We saw the top people in the Department acting politically with appointments. We saw the diminution of the Civil Rights Division. We saw at least 9 U.S. attorneys terminated because the administration did not agree with the decision they either refused to make or made. That is not the way the Attorney General should run what is a very large Department.

This is a $25 billion agency. It has over 100,000 employees. It is charged with fighting terrorism, stopping violent crime, upholding our civil rights laws, and enforcing our civil liberties. As those of us on the Judiciary Committee know well, the Department is badly in need of repair.

In January of 2007--as a matter of fact, I remember it well--I came to the floor, and I said someone, a Republican, had called me and said that on a given day in December, seven U.S. attorneys had been fired. Well, I checked, and in fact that was correct. On December 7, seven U.S. attorneys had been fired. What he also told me: It was all for the wrong reasons. And he said: Look into it.

Under the leadership of the chairman of the committee, Pat Leahy, we did look into it. What we found was a trend in the middle of the term to essentially take certain U.S. attorneys and terminate them for one reason or another: some, I believe, because they would not bring a certain prosecution and some, I believe to this day, because they did bring a certain prosecution.

Last year, Inspector General Glenn Fine released four separate reports documenting violations of civil service laws and politicized hiring throughout the Department. Well, there is a big job to do, and it is going to be Mr. Holder's duty to turn this Department around, to restore its credibility.

This is a proud Department, and I believe Mr. Holder gave every one of us on the committee confidence last month when he stated this:

[T]he notion that the Justice Department would ever take

into account a person's political affiliation or political

beliefs in making [career] hiring decisions is antithetical

to everything that the Department stands for. Now, that is a

substantial commitment, and those of us on the Judiciary

Committee will be watching him carry it out. So I am

delighted this new Attorney General--I believe will be

confirmed at 6:15 tonight--will restore the integrity and the

professionalism of this great Department.

In my view, despite differences on certain judgments, there is no one--no one--more qualified to become Attorney General of the United States than Eric Holder, and I will proudly cast my vote for him.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Specter and Feingold in introducing the Equal Justice for U.S. Service Members Act. The Act would eliminate an inequity in current law by allowing all court-martialed U.S. servicemembers who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to petition the United States Supreme Court for discretionary review through a writ of certiorari.

The bill is a simple one, and would do the following: allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review; and allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied a petition for extraordinary relief.

In our civilian courts today, all person convicted of a crime, if they lose on appeal, have a right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review. Even enemy combatants have the right to direct appellate review in the Supreme Court.

In contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right. Our military personnel can apply to the U.S. Supreme Court only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces actually conducts a review of their case or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. That only happens about 10 percent of the time.

In other words, in 90 percent of their case, our U.S. servicemembers are prevented from ever seeking or obtaining direct review from the Supreme Court.

This disparity is not limited to our civilian and military court systems. A similar disparity exists within our military court system relief. The Government routinely has the chance to petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But our military personnel do not share the same rights to petition the Supreme Court as the military prosecutors on the other side of the aisle.

This is wrong, and this inequity was recently noted by the American Bar Association, which passed a resolution calling on Congress on fix this long-standing ``disparity in our laws governing procedural due process.''

Every day, our U.S. service personnel place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform one of those rights--the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief. It is a right given to common criminals in our civilian courts, to the Government, and even to some of the terrorists who we hope to prosecute as war criminals.

The bill is supported by the American Bar Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Institute of Military Justice. Robinson Everett, the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, the predecessor to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, also supports the bill.

It's long past time we give them the same rights as the American citizens they fight, and sometimes die, to protect.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Specter and Feingold in introducing the Equal Justice for U.S. Service Members Act. The Act would eliminate an inequity in current law by allowing all court-martialed U.S. servicemembers who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to petition the United States Supreme Court for discretionary review through a writ of certiorari.

The bill is a simple one, and would do the following: allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review; and allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied a petition for extraordinary relief.

In our civilian courts today, all person convicted of a crime, if they lose on appeal, have a right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review. Even enemy combatants have the right to direct appellate review in the Supreme Court.

In contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right. Our military personnel can apply to the U.S. Supreme Court only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces actually conducts a review of their case or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. That only happens about 10 percent of the time.

In other words, in 90 percent of their case, our U.S. servicemembers are prevented from ever seeking or obtaining direct review from the Supreme Court.

This disparity is not limited to our civilian and military court systems. A similar disparity exists within our military court system relief. The Government routinely has the chance to petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But our military personnel do not share the same rights to petition the Supreme Court as the military prosecutors on the other side of the aisle.

This is wrong, and this inequity was recently noted by the American Bar Association, which passed a resolution calling on Congress on fix this long-standing ``disparity in our laws governing procedural due process.''

Every day, our U.S. service personnel place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform one of those rights--the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief. It is a right given to common criminals in our civilian courts, to the Government, and even to some of the terrorists who we hope to prosecute as war criminals.

The bill is supported by the American Bar Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Institute of Military Justice. Robinson Everett, the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, the predecessor to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, also supports the bill.

It's long past time we give them the same rights as the American citizens they fight, and sometimes die, to protect.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers.

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

Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence to urge the Senate to confirm Admiral Dennis C. Blair to be the next Director of National Intelligence.

Admiral Blair is well known to many of us from his years of service as the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command. He has served with distinction in the national security field all his adult life, entering the Naval Academy in 1964 and serving for 34 years.

During his naval career, Admiral Blair was involved in the intelligence field and in policymaking. He worked twice in the White House, first as a fellow and then on the National Security Council staff. He worked for 2 years at the CIA as the Associate Director for Military Support. And he was named to be the Director of the Joint Staff in 1996.

He has been a consumer and a manager of intelligence through his career, and he has a strong understanding of the importance of providing the President, the Congress, and other policymakers with accurate, actionable, and timely intelligence.

Admiral Blair will be the Nation's third Director of National Intelligence, a position that was left vacant by the resignation of ADM Mike McConnell earlier this week. It is critical that Admiral Blair be confirmed so that the intelligence community has the leadership it needs.

I hope that the Senate will confirm Admiral Blair on a strong bipartisan basis, sending the signal that we are united in our support for the nominee and in our interest in strong leadership of the intelligence community.

The position of the Director of National Intelligence was created so that there would be a single leader of the 16 intelligence agencies who could bring greater integration to the work of U.S. intelligence. The job of the Director is to break down the stovepipes and put intelligence agencies back on the right track when they go astray.

Progress has been made by the previous Directors, Ambassador Negroponte and Admiral McConnell, but they would agree much work is ahead. As Admiral Blair said to the committee, it will be his job as the DNI to see that ``the whole of the national intelligence enterprise is always more than the sum of its parts.''

Admiral Blair has pledged, however, to take forceful action when there are disagreements or when he believes an agency is not performing as it should.

He has a keen appreciation both for the many smart, dedicated and brave professionals in the intelligence community workforce and for the role of the DNI to give these professionals the right missions, and the right tools, to collect the intelligence we need and conduct professional and accurate analysis.

President-elect Obama announced his intention to nominate Admiral Blair on January 9, 2009, and then President Obama submitted the nomination to the Senate on his first afternoon in office. The Intelligence Committee carefully reviewed Admiral Blair's record and his views on the role of the Director of National Intelligence, the threats facing the United States, and the appropriate way for the intelligence community to handle its missions.

The committee held a public hearing with Admiral Blair on January 22, at which he was introduced and supported by our distinguished colleague and very first chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Inouye.

Before and after the hearing, Admiral Blair answered numerous questions for the record. His answers can be found on the committee's Web site, and I commend them to all Members and the public for a better understanding of his views about the important office to which he has been nominated, and the challenges he will face on behalf of the American people.

I have been especially pleased with the commitment of Admiral Blair to address the issue of congressional oversight. In our prehearing questions, we asked Admiral Blair about his views on keeping the intelligence committees fully and currently informed of intelligence activities.

We asked him to address in particular the failure to brief the entire membership of the intelligence committees on the CIA's interrogation, detention, and rendition program, and the NSA's electronic surveillance program. His direct answer recognized a fundamental truth: ``These programs were less effective and did not have sufficient legal and constitutional foundations because the intelligence committees were prevented from carrying out their oversight responsibilities.''

Admiral Blair has pledged that he will work closely with the committee and the Congress to build a relationship of trust and candor. He has said that the leadership of the intelligence community must earn the support and trust of the intelligence oversight committees if it is to earn the trust and support of the American people. I wholeheartedly agree.

I am confident that Admiral Blair will ensure that the membership of the select committee is given access to the information it needs to perform its oversight role, and U.S. intelligence programs will have a stronger foundation because of it.

He has also agreed to come before the committee on a monthly basis to have candid discussions with all members on the major issues he sees and the challenges he faces. These sessions are enormously important for the committee to truly understand the workings of the intelligence community and to carry out our oversight responsibilities.

In addition, Admiral Blair will have a pivotal role in the implementation of the recent presidential Executive orders to close the detention center in Guantanamo and ensure there is a single standard for the humane and lawful treatment of detainees by U.S. military and intelligence services.

These executive orders represent an extraordinarily important turning point for our Nation. Admiral Blair has made strong statements to the committee that torture is not moral, legal, or effective, and that the U.S. Government must have a single clear standard for the treatment and interrogation of detainees. I am convinced he will help ensure we are once more true to our ideals and protecting our national security.

Having been an early advocate of the creation of the position, it is for me a distinct honor that my very first floor responsibility as the new chairman of the Intelligence Committee is to report this nomination.

I am pleased to relay to my colleagues that the Intelligence Committee met today, on January 28, and voted to report favorably the nomination of Admiral Blair to be the Director of National Intelligence.

The Senate has moved quickly to act on this recommendation. It is a testament to the importance of the position and the qualifications of the nominee. I thank the vice chairman for working with me to move the nomination quickly but with the due diligence appropriate for this position.

Admiral Blair has my strong support to lead the intelligence community and I look forward to working with him closely in the days to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act, a bill that will ensure federal law is followed when a Native American tribe seeks to operate any new gaming facilities.

This legislation is simple, straightforward, and fair. It would amend language inserted in the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000 that required the Secretary of the Interior to take a card club and adjacent parking lot in the San Francisco Bay Area into trust for the Lytton tribe as their reservation. That legislation also required that the acquisition be backdated to October 17, 1988, before the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA.

The ``two-part'' determination process in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a critical component to tribal land acquisition for gaming purposes and should not be circumvented. Specifically, it requires the Governor's consent and the Secretary of the Interior to consult with nearby tribes and the local community and its representatives.

The legislation that I am introducing would require the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians to follow these same critical oversight guidelines laid out in Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act before engaging in Class III, or Nevada-style, gaming on land acquired after the passage of IGRA in 1988.

The bill allows the tribe to continue operating a Class II facility at the current site provided the tribe follows IGRA regulations for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the future. The bill also precludes any expansion of the tribe's current Class II facility.

The bill would not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition status, alter the trust status of the new reservation, or take away the tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard process prescribed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The bill serves only to restore the jurisdiction of IGRA over the gaming process, as originally intended by Congress.

Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides an established and clear process for gaming on newly-

acquired lands taken into trust after the enactment of IGRA in 1988. The ``two-part determination'' process allows for federal and state approval, and for input from nearby tribes and local communities.

Circumventing this process can have negative and severe impacts on local citizens and deprive local and tribal governments of their ability to represent their communities on an incredibly important and contentious issue.

If this bill is not approved, the Lytton tribe could take the former card club that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large gaming complex operating outside the regulations set up by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004.

I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned a plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse these plans at any time. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent in California and any state where tribal gaming is permitted.

Instead, Congress should reaffirm its intent that all new gaming facilities should be subject to IGRA without preference or prejudice.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act, a bill that will ensure federal law is followed when a Native American tribe seeks to operate any new gaming facilities.

This legislation is simple, straightforward, and fair. It would amend language inserted in the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000 that required the Secretary of the Interior to take a card club and adjacent parking lot in the San Francisco Bay Area into trust for the Lytton tribe as their reservation. That legislation also required that the acquisition be backdated to October 17, 1988, before the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA.

The ``two-part'' determination process in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a critical component to tribal land acquisition for gaming purposes and should not be circumvented. Specifically, it requires the Governor's consent and the Secretary of the Interior to consult with nearby tribes and the local community and its representatives.

The legislation that I am introducing would require the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians to follow these same critical oversight guidelines laid out in Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act before engaging in Class III, or Nevada-style, gaming on land acquired after the passage of IGRA in 1988.

The bill allows the tribe to continue operating a Class II facility at the current site provided the tribe follows IGRA regulations for gaming on newly-acquired lands in the future. The bill also precludes any expansion of the tribe's current Class II facility.

The bill would not modify or eliminate the tribe's federal recognition status, alter the trust status of the new reservation, or take away the tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the standard process prescribed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The bill serves only to restore the jurisdiction of IGRA over the gaming process, as originally intended by Congress.

Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides an established and clear process for gaming on newly-

acquired lands taken into trust after the enactment of IGRA in 1988. The ``two-part determination'' process allows for federal and state approval, and for input from nearby tribes and local communities.

Circumventing this process can have negative and severe impacts on local citizens and deprive local and tribal governments of their ability to represent their communities on an incredibly important and contentious issue.

If this bill is not approved, the Lytton tribe could take the former card club that serves as their reservation and turn it into a large gaming complex operating outside the regulations set up by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004.

I am pleased that the tribe has abandoned a plan seeking a sizable Class III casino, but without this legislation the tribe could reverse these plans at any time. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent in California and any state where tribal gaming is permitted.

Instead, Congress should reaffirm its intent that all new gaming facilities should be subject to IGRA without preference or prejudice.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act, calling for a new effort to combat this often deadly form of cancer. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Brownback, the Co-Chair of

the Senate Cancer Coalition, and a strong voice on a variety of cancer issues.

This bill will renew and improve the Federal Government's efforts to combat lung cancer. It will affirm the goal of a 50 percent reduction in lung cancer mortality by 2015.

It will authorize a Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program, with interagency coordination, to develop and implement a plan to meet this goal.

It will authorize $75 million for lung cancer research programs in the National Heart Lung Blood Institute, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Centers for Disease Control.

It will create a new incentive program in the Food and Drug Administration to be modeled on the Orphan Drug Act for the development of chemoprevention drugs for lung cancer and precancerous lung disease. These are drugs that could prevent precancer from progressing into full-blown disease.

It will improve coordination disparity programs to ensure that the burdens of lung cancer on minority populations are addressed.

We have made great strides against many types of cancer in the last several decades. However, these gains are uneven.

When the National Cancer Act was passed in 1971, lung cancer had a 5- year survival rate of only 12 percent. After decades of research efforts and scientific advances, this survival rate remains only 15 percent. In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of breast, prostate, and colon cancer have risen to 89 percent, 99 percent and 65 percent respectively.

A lung cancer diagnosis can be devastating. The average life expectancy following a lung cancer diagnosis is only 9 months.

This is because far too many patients are not diagnosed with lung cancer until it has progressed to the later stages. Lung cancer can be hard to diagnose, and symptoms may at first appear to be other illnesses. As a result, only 16 percent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed when their cancer is still localized, and is the most treatable.

Lung cancer still lacks early detection technology, to find cancer when it is most treatable. Mammograms can find breast cancer, and colonoscopies can find dangerous colon polyps. But there is no equivalent test for lung cancer at this time.

Under this legislation, the National Cancer Institute has clear authority to work with other institutes on this early detection research. Coordination between all branches of the National Institutes of Health, including those with expertise on lungs, imaging, and cancer will be necessary to make this long overdue progress.

Lung cancer lags behind other cancers, in part, due to stigma from smoking. Make no mistake, tobacco use causes the majority of lung cancer cases. Tobacco cessation is a critical component of reducing lung cancer mortality. Less smoking means less lung cancer. Period.

But tobacco use does not fully explain lung cancer. Approximately 15 percent of the people who die from lung cancer never smoked. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2007 tracked the incidence of lung cancer in 1 million people ages 40 to 79. It found that about 20 percent of female lung cancer patients were nonsmokers and 8 percent of male patients were nonsmokers.

These patients may have been exposed to second hand smoke, or they may have been exposed to radon, asbestos, chromium, or other chemicals. There could be other causes and associations that have not yet been discovered, genetic predispositions or other environmental exposures.

Dana Reeve put a face on these statistics, with her brave fight against lung cancer. Dana Reeve was a nonsmoker, and still was diagnosed with lung cancer at the age of 44. She died a mere 7 months later, leaving a young son.

Dana Reeve's story shows that smoking cannot fully explain lung cancer. Everyone in this country could stop smoking today, and yet we would still face a lung cancer epidemic. According to the Lung Cancer Alliance, over 60 percent of new lung cancer cases occur in those who never smoked, or who quit smoking.

I believe that we have the expertise and technology to make serious progress against this deadly cancer, and to reach the goal of halving lung cancer mortality by 2015.

We need this legislation to ensure that our Government's resources are focused on this mission in the most efficient way possible.

Agency efforts must be coordinated, and every part of the National Institutes of Health that may have some ideas to lend should be participating. That is what the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program will accomplish.

We can do better for Americans diagnosed with lung cancer. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act, calling for a new effort to combat this often deadly form of cancer. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Brownback, the Co-Chair of

the Senate Cancer Coalition, and a strong voice on a variety of cancer issues.

This bill will renew and improve the Federal Government's efforts to combat lung cancer. It will affirm the goal of a 50 percent reduction in lung cancer mortality by 2015.

It will authorize a Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program, with interagency coordination, to develop and implement a plan to meet this goal.

It will authorize $75 million for lung cancer research programs in the National Heart Lung Blood Institute, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Centers for Disease Control.

It will create a new incentive program in the Food and Drug Administration to be modeled on the Orphan Drug Act for the development of chemoprevention drugs for lung cancer and precancerous lung disease. These are drugs that could prevent precancer from progressing into full-blown disease.

It will improve coordination disparity programs to ensure that the burdens of lung cancer on minority populations are addressed.

We have made great strides against many types of cancer in the last several decades. However, these gains are uneven.

When the National Cancer Act was passed in 1971, lung cancer had a 5- year survival rate of only 12 percent. After decades of research efforts and scientific advances, this survival rate remains only 15 percent. In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of breast, prostate, and colon cancer have risen to 89 percent, 99 percent and 65 percent respectively.

A lung cancer diagnosis can be devastating. The average life expectancy following a lung cancer diagnosis is only 9 months.

This is because far too many patients are not diagnosed with lung cancer until it has progressed to the later stages. Lung cancer can be hard to diagnose, and symptoms may at first appear to be other illnesses. As a result, only 16 percent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed when their cancer is still localized, and is the most treatable.

Lung cancer still lacks early detection technology, to find cancer when it is most treatable. Mammograms can find breast cancer, and colonoscopies can find dangerous colon polyps. But there is no equivalent test for lung cancer at this time.

Under this legislation, the National Cancer Institute has clear authority to work with other institutes on this early detection research. Coordination between all branches of the National Institutes of Health, including those with expertise on lungs, imaging, and cancer will be necessary to make this long overdue progress.

Lung cancer lags behind other cancers, in part, due to stigma from smoking. Make no mistake, tobacco use causes the majority of lung cancer cases. Tobacco cessation is a critical component of reducing lung cancer mortality. Less smoking means less lung cancer. Period.

But tobacco use does not fully explain lung cancer. Approximately 15 percent of the people who die from lung cancer never smoked. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2007 tracked the incidence of lung cancer in 1 million people ages 40 to 79. It found that about 20 percent of female lung cancer patients were nonsmokers and 8 percent of male patients were nonsmokers.

These patients may have been exposed to second hand smoke, or they may have been exposed to radon, asbestos, chromium, or other chemicals. There could be other causes and associations that have not yet been discovered, genetic predispositions or other environmental exposures.

Dana Reeve put a face on these statistics, with her brave fight against lung cancer. Dana Reeve was a nonsmoker, and still was diagnosed with lung cancer at the age of 44. She died a mere 7 months later, leaving a young son.

Dana Reeve's story shows that smoking cannot fully explain lung cancer. Everyone in this country could stop smoking today, and yet we would still face a lung cancer epidemic. According to the Lung Cancer Alliance, over 60 percent of new lung cancer cases occur in those who never smoked, or who quit smoking.

I believe that we have the expertise and technology to make serious progress against this deadly cancer, and to reach the goal of halving lung cancer mortality by 2015.

We need this legislation to ensure that our Government's resources are focused on this mission in the most efficient way possible.

Agency efforts must be coordinated, and every part of the National Institutes of Health that may have some ideas to lend should be participating. That is what the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program will accomplish.

We can do better for Americans diagnosed with lung cancer. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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