Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor to oppose the amendment just presented by Senator DeMint. I worked very hard to get a provision in the military construction bill regarding this major piece of veterans property in the center of Los Angeles. I want to begin by thanking Senator Reed and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for agreeing to put this legislation in the Military Construction bill. This is 388 acres--388 acres--in the middle of Los Angeles. It is bisected by Wilshire Boulevard. It is near Santa Monica Boulevard. It is a large piece of property, and on that property is a 1,000-bed veterans hospital.

The property was deeded in 1888 following the Civil War by two families to the Federal Government to be used specifically and permanently as an Old Soldiers' Home for the use of veterans. As many Members know, California has the largest number of veterans in America--over 2 million--and over 300,000 veterans are enrolled to use the facilities in this State of which this facility is prime. At the time, as the population of disabled and elderly veterans grew following the end of the Civil War, the Government decided to respond by establishing a number of national homes throughout the United States.

In March of 1888, Senator John P. Jones and Arcadia B. de Baker donated their Santa Monica ranch lands in southern California to establish the Pacific branch of the National Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

The deed reads very specifically:

That whereas by an act of Congress approved March 2, 1887

to provide for the location and erection of a branch home for

the disabled volunteer soldiers west of the Rocky Mountains,

the Board of Managers of the National Home for Disabled

Volunteer Soldiers were authorized, empowered, and directed

to locate, establish, construct, and permanently maintain a

branch of said National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

The sole purpose outlined in the original deed was affirmed in 2002 by then Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi when he visited the site and again when he issued a May 2004 decision regarding plans for the modernization of VA facilities elsewhere.

What has happened is the administration sees this land dedicated to veterans and says: Aha, there is a higher and better use for this land. We can make $4 billion if we lease out the unbuilt-upon parts of this land. That is what they have done under the radar screen. They have leased out to an automobile rental agency. They have leased out to a Fox movie lot. This is veterans land. This is land that was deeded to veterans to be used by veterans, not to be used by Fox movies, not to be used by automobile rentals. The administration admits if they do this, they can raise $4 billion in commercial rentals from this land, thereby taking this hospital, now in its park-like setting, and encrusting it with high rise buildings along Wilshire Boulevard.

Well, let me tell my colleagues what has happened. The veterans community has risen up in Los Angeles and said: We are the largest veterans community anywhere in the Nation. You are taking land deeded to us. You are going to lease it, rent it in any way you can for this higher and best use, which is high-rise construction, and they don't like it. The neighbors don't like it. The city doesn't like it. The Board of Supervisors doesn't like it. Yesterday, the L.A. Times editorialized against it.

So this amendment is not an amendment just concocted out of my brain. This is an amendment that has been worked on for a long time, with Members of the House who represent this area and with the Military Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations. We want to preserve the integrity of the land that was originally granted for use as an Old Soldiers' Home for veterans purposes in this new modern-day era and do it in a way where we have access to the largest number of veterans anywhere in the United States.

I find it shocking that the Department of Veterans Affairs went ahead and leased parts of this land. The VA continues to this day film production on the property. It recently allowed Fox Studios to construct a set storage building there.

In 1996, a 65,000-seat NFL football stadium was proposed for the open space on the west L.A. VA until Congress stepped in and passed a resolution to prohibit the action. Once again, I have asked Congress to step in and prohibit the commercialization of this site. It should be used for veterans purposes.

So when I was in Los Angeles in August, I met with former Mayor Dick Riordan and Eli Broad to discuss various options. No decisions were made, but they have a vision for this. The important thing is that it not be commercialized; that for the financial problems of the administration, they shouldn't commercialize this land. They shouldn't sell it to the highest bidder. They shouldn't go for the highest and best use. They shouldn't build high-rise construction. I will tell my colleagues, if it happens, there will be an uprising from the neighbors in the area because this land is right off of the 405 freeway, and congestion and difficulties will result. I find it rather a crass gesture to take veterans land that is dedicated to veterans, that has a large hospital, 1,000 beds in it, that serves tens of thousands of enrolled veterans--no other city serves so many veterans--and go ahead and commercialize this site.

So what this does is stops that commercialization of the site. The California delegation is united, whether it is in the Senate or whether it is in the House. I can give my colleagues two

pages--and I will give my colleagues some of them--of people supporting this legislation: the County of Los Angeles; the City of Los Angeles; Zev Yaroslavsky, chairman of the County Board of Supervisors; Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; Representatives Henry Waxman, Berman, Harman, and Sherman; City Council members, every one of them; State Senator Kuehl; Assemblyman Feuer, Assemblywoman Bass, Assemblywoman Brownlee; Santa Monica mayor; Santa Monica council; AMVETS Post 2; AMVETS Post 116; American Legion Post 123; VFW Post 875; Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 446; the Bel-Air Association; the Beverly Glen Association; Blair House; the Brentwood Community Council; and on and on--the Coalition for Veterans Land; the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations; Friends of Westwood; the Pacific Palisades. It is virtually all of west L.A. that is saying: Don't sell this land for commercial use.

What the Department has announced is that they intend to make $4 billion by selling this land. You and I know what is going to go on this land: commercial, office, high-rises because that is what you get the money from. It would be a travesty.

One of the things we now know is that traumatic brain injury is a major injury from this war. We need to build on veterans facilities, not take their land away.

So I would say, Senator DeMint, take back this motion. It is the wrong thing to do. Administration, I know you have a statement saying you oppose the amendment, but the city of Los Angeles, the county of Los Angeles is united.

So, Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it is just an interesting note that the man who gave this land, the 300-plus acres, to veterans was a United States Senator at the time, John P. Jones. He actually was a Republican from the State of Nevada, and he served 30 years in the Senate, from 1873 to 1903. So he was a 50-percent owner of this land, and it was a wonderful gift to the veterans. I think it should not be destroyed. Thank you.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I withdraw my motion to table at this time because I know Senator Boxer is coming to the floor and wishes to address this question, and Senator DeMint may wish to also respond, and I will remain and propose the motion at a later time.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I particularly thank Chairman Reed for putting this provision in the bill. I am very grateful. I am also very grateful for his defense of it today.

I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, for her help on the floor, for her support, and for her continuous advocacy on behalf of California.

The bottom line is, would you sell the National Mall for profit? Would you sell Roosevelt Island for profit? Would you sell any part of the federal highway system for profit? Why would you take land that has been dedicated for veterans purposes and lease it out for profit when we know, as Senator Boxer said, we have thousands of homeless veterans, and right now there is a proposal moving forward to possibly build some homeless units for veterans on that facility?

This land was deeded to the Federal Government, a huge amount of land, for the purpose of veterans, not for Fox movie studios, not for Enterprise, or whatever car rental agency, but for veterans in a city with the largest number of veterans in the United States, and over 322,000 veterans enrolled to use that facility, with a hospital of 1,000 beds on that facility. You are going to begin to lease out that land?

I think it is terrible, just terrible. The next step would be the National Mall. We ought to resist this effort. There are a lot of ways to make money, but I think the worst way is to make money off veterans at this point in time.

I very much resist this amendment. I join with my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, in resisting the amendment. I join with the committee chairman in resisting this amendment. I join with the ranking member of the committee in resisting this amendment. I hope there will be a very strong vote.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays, and I move to table the amendment.

Once again, I will withdraw my motion to table for the greater good of getting a unanimous consent agreement, I hope.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 2642, the DeMint amendment. If I might correct that, it is 2686, the DeMint amendment.

I move to table and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the Nomination of Robert C. Tapella of Virginia, to be Public Printer, Government Printing Office.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mr. President, I remember well the day I saw the letter from Admiral McConnell. I believe the day was July 24. That is not a long time ago. But it was a kind of wake-up call to us. Because what that letter says in essence is he believes the United States is vulnerable, and he believes we need to move quickly to change FISA.

From an intelligence point of view, many of us believe the chatter is up. It is not necessarily well defined, but during the 9/11 period, this is clearly a period of heightened vulnerability. Therefore, what Admiral McConnell wants to do is be able to better collect foreign intelligence. I very much respect what has happened. I respect the bill that was put together on the Democratic side, and I respect the bill that was put together on the Republican side, which is the McConnell bill on that side.

The Senator from Wisconsin might be interested to know that some of us just met with Admiral McConnell, particularly to discuss Senator Feingold's concern. There is a different point of view. A U.S. citizen in Europe is, in fact, covered. A U.S. citizen in Europe, the minimization under certain specific laws, not FISA, but precisely 12333 point something, which I cannot remember at the present time, comes into play. That U.S. citizen is subject to a warrant from the court.

This is a temporary bill. It is to fill a gap. The court has done something which has said that what has existed for decades with respect to the collection of foreign intelligence now cannot exist under the present law, and we need to change that law.

It is my intention to vote for both bills. The reason I will vote for both bills is to see that some bill acquires the 60 votes to get passed tonight. We are going out of session. There is no time. I think this is unfortunate. I received the Democratic bill about 20 minutes ago. I went into the leader's office, tried to sit down and get briefed. Up to this point I still don't understand it. I spent all afternoon on the McConnell bill. I am just beginning to understand the subtleties in it and the other laws that come into play.

This is not going to be an easy vote for anyone. But what we have to think of right now is, on a temporary basis, how do we best protect the people of the United States against a terrible attack.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

vote on s. 2011

Mr. President, quickly, before I begin, I also wish to send my very deep condolences to those families who will have lost their loved ones in this very tragic bridge collapse. I heard the mayor on the television this morning, and it brought me back to my days as mayor. I know what this

kind of difficulty--whether it is an earthquake or a bridge collapse-- brings for a city.

I wish to extend my thanks to the wonderful efforts made by the emergency forces and the medical team of the city of Minneapolis. I think it was very special. I saw many acts of heroism.

I very much agree with what the majority leader said about our deteriorating infrastructure. My thoughts went to the great Golden Gate Bridge. I think we need to pay more attention to our homefront and to those items. But at this point I send my very deep condolences to those who will have lost family members and loved ones.

Mr. President, if I may, I wish to present a unanimous consent agreement regarding speakers on our side directly following my remarks: Senator Lieberman, for 10 minutes; Senator Obama, for 10 minutes; Senator Feingold, for 10 minutes; Senator Durbin, for 10 minutes; and Senator Reid, for 10 minutes of leader time, I believe.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to invoke cloture on this bill, S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. In the last election, the message was loud and clear: It is time to change the way business is done in the Nation's Capital. In response, what is before us this morning is the single most sweeping congressional reform bill since Watergate. I support its passage, and I support its passage despite the fact that I do not like everything that is in this bill. It is a strong bill. I am sure it is too strong for some and it is too weak for others, but, like all conference reports, it is, in effect, to some degree a compromise.

On Tuesday, by a 411-to-8 strongly bipartisan vote, the House passed this legislation, and now it is the Senate's turn. It would be a serious mistake if we do not step up to the plate and demonstrate to the American people that we have heard their message.

As I say, the bill is not perfect. There have been some complaints by the minority party about the process used to bring this bill to the floor, and I wish to begin by addressing that issue.

Last January, the Senate passed S. 1 by a 96-to-2 vote. On May 24, the House passed companion legislation by a 386-to-22 margin. Those were strong bipartisan votes. But when the majority leader sought unanimous consent to name conferees, one member of the minority party objected, and he held fast to his objections, preventing the establishment of a conference committee where Members could have sat down in the light of day and negotiated Member to Member the differences between the two bills. Clearly, that wasn't able to take place.

With few other options available, the majority leader and the Speaker of the House sought consensus on a bill that could be taken up by both Houses, and that consensus bill is what we have before us today.

It may not be every person's wish, and as chairman of the Rules Committee, I commit right now to keep these items on the front burner, and should changes be necessitated, I would be very happy to entertain them. Though I cannot speak for my counterpart, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Bennett, I believe he would also.

But today, let me say this: I believe this is a good bill--not a perfect bill but a good bill. Its passage today is the most direct action we can take to show the American people that, yes, we want to curb the influence of lobbyists and we want to restore the public trust on how we operate as Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.

In recent years, there has been an explosive growth in the number of registered lobbyists in Washington from 16,342 in 2000 to 34,785 in 2005. So in 5 years, the numbers of lobbyists have doubled, and, according to all reports, the numbers keep growing.

One of the most critical provisions of this bill will now shine new light on the role lobbyists play in political campaigns by requiring the disclosure of funds they bundle on behalf of Members, PACs, and party committees. It will also require that lobbyists disclose all their campaign contributions as well as payments to Presidential libraries, inaugural committees, or entities controlled by, named, or honoring Members of Congress, and it requires lobbyists to file electronic reports quarterly on their lobbying activity, with these reports becoming available on a searchable public database. The bill also increases civil penalties from $50,000 to $200,000 and establishes a criminal penalty of up to 5 years for those lobbyists who knowingly and corruptly fail to comply with these new requirements.

There has been increasing concern about former members of the administration, former lawmakers, and their staff gaining undue access as lobbyists because of the relationships they have made while working for the Government. This bill seeks to address those concerns by increasing the length of time, the so-called cooling-off period, for Senators. Currently, Senators are barred from lobbying Congress for 1 year. With passage of this bill, that would be extended to 2 years.

Cabinet Secretaries and other very senior executive personnel would be prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for 2 years after they leave their position. In other words, they cannot lobby the department from which they left for 2 years. That is an increase from 1 to 2 years.

Senior Senate staff and Senate officers would be barred from lobbying the entire Senate for 1 year, instead of just their former employing office. That would be the whole Senate, not just their office.

There has been a lot of talk also about the K Street Project in which lobbyist firms, trade associations, and other business groups were told by former House majority leader Tom Delay and others that they would encounter a closed door in Congress unless they hired members of the then majority party. This bill seeks to end that practice by prohibiting Members of Congress and their staff from influencing hiring decisions of any private organization on the sole basis of partisan political gain, and it carries with it a fine and imprisonment of up to 15 years for violations. That is a stiff penalty, but hopefully it sends a stiff and strong signal that such practices will not be tolerated in the future.

Another issue that recently came to light is that Members of Congress convicted of bribery, perjury, conspiracy, and other related crimes can still receive their congressional pensions. I did not know this. Probably you didn't know this, Mr. President. But, fortunately, this bill ends that practice.

S. 1 also contains a number of major reforms to Senate rules, and I will highlight a few of the most important procedural reforms.

Section 511 amends rule XXVIII to subject ``dead of night'' additions to conference reports, when the new matter was not approved by either House, to a 60-vote point of order. This is a very important change in the rules, and it has been the bane of many our existence for a long period of time. You go through the process, and then after the process is concluded, in the dead of night, something is stuck into a conference bill. This practice will end.

Currently, when an out-of-scope provision is added to a conference report, we can object, but the objection brings down the whole bill. The reform in this bill will allow a Member to object to just the added provision.

I first proposed this provision in the last Congress and worked closely with Senator Lott on its development. I am very happy that it is included in the final bill.

Section 512 ends secret Senate holds by requiring the Senator placing a hold on a legislative matter or nomination to publicly disclose that hold within 6 days. This, too, is an important reform. We all know about anonymous holds. We all know what it takes to discover who actually has the hold. It is time those Members who seek to hold up legislation come forward and disclose who they are and why. We do not prohibit their ability to exercise this senatorial prerogative, but we do require that they be transparent and, therefore, public about it.

Section 513 requires that Senate committees and subcommittees post video recordings, audio recordings, or transcripts of all public meetings on the Internet.

A great deal of attention has been given to the dramatic escalation in the number of earmarks awarded by Congress, and I wish to spend a couple of minutes on the earmark provisions.

According to a survey of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, the number of earmarks has skyrocketed from 6,114 to 13,012 in 2006. So in 6 years, the number of earmarks has more than doubled. Henceforth, earmarks which are in effect congressional additions to spending cannot be made in the dark of night but only in the full light of transparent disclosure. That is a big change.

This bill would require that the sponsor or the requester of each and every earmark be publicly identified, and because there is often disagreement about what does and does not constitute an earmark, the bill provides for the first time in Senate rules a definition that does not restrict the disclosure requirement to only appropriations bills. You and I, Madam President, serve on the Appropriations Committee, but there are also these authorizations that, in effect, are requests for added spending.

This new rule XLIV requires that all congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in bills, resolutions, conference reports, and managers' statements be identified and posted on the Internet at least 48 hours before Senate action. So 48 hours before a bill comes to the floor, all of these additions must be transparently available to the public. It requires for the first time that Senators certify that they and their immediate family will not have a direct pecuniary benefit from the earmark they request as defined by rule XXXVII.

Separately, rule XLIV also subjects new directed spending added to a conference report when the new spending was not approved by either House to a 60-vote point of order so that you, Madam President, I, Senator Grassley, or anyone else can come to the floor and raise a point of order to that congressional add-on, and then that would be subject to a 60-vote point of order. If a Senator objects to the earmark being dropped into the conference report, it then will most likely be stripped out unless 60 Senators vote to keep it in.

Committees would also be required, to the greatest extent practicable, to disclose in unclassified language the funding level and the name of the sponsor of congressionally directed spending included in classified portions of bills, joint resolutions, and conference reports. The chairman of each committee is responsible for certifying that the list of earmarks is correct and properly identified. So there is also a burden placed on the chair of every committee and subcommittee.

Let me speak for a moment about gift and travel reform. The Senate rules have also been reformed to curb the special access that special interests seek to gain by providing Members with gifts, meals, and tickets to entertainment and sports events. This bill prohibits staff and Senators from accepting gifts from registered lobbyists or entities that employ them. The bill prohibits Senators from attending parties in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the Senator is the party's Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee.

The bill amends rule XXXV by prohibiting Senators and their staff from accepting private travel from registered lobbyists or entities that hire them, and prohibiting lobbyists from organizing, arranging, requesting, or participating in travel by Senators or their staff. However, Senators and their staff, with preapproval from the Ethics Committee, will still be allowed to accept travel by entities that employ lobbyists if it is necessary to participate in a 1-day meeting, a speaking engagement, a fact-finding trip, or similar event. And Senators and their staff can still accept travel provided by 501(c)(3) organizations if the trip has been preapproved by the Ethics Committee.

Finally, Senators will be required to pay the fair market value--that is, the charter rate--for flights on private jets not operating or paid for by an air carrier that is certified by the FAA. Section 601 separately establishes the same requirement for Senate candidates and Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. This, in itself, is a consequential reform and somewhat controversial.

Finally, before closing, I would like to thank the majority leader for his unyielding determination to bring this bill forward. Without his dogged determination, and that of the Speaker of the House, I don't believe this bill would be before us today, and both are to be commended.

The 2006 election saw the largest congressional shift since 1994, and even with the war in Iraq on many voters' minds, Americans remain seriously concerned about ethics in government. It is time we listen to their concerns. This bill attempts to do so.

It is not always easy, it is not going to please everybody, and as I said in the beginning, Members are either going to feel that this bill is too strong about this part or that part, or too weak about this part or that part. But let me just reinforce that this is a conference report. It is not subject to amendment. It has been put together in an unusual procedure because of the objection from the other side to us going to conference, which would have been a far preferable method of handling this.

I once again repeat my commitment that as chairman of the Rules Committee, I will be happy to consider any amendments that the operation of this bill might indicate are warranted in the future.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor at this time.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I won't object, but I misspoke, and if I may just correct the record.

This is not a conference report. It is a bill. But it is still not subject to amendment because the tree is filled. I wanted to make that clear.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The lobbying portion of this bill falls within Senator Lieberman's jurisdiction. I also thank him for a job well done. He has been steadfast in this pursuit for a number of years.

I will exchange places with the Presiding Officer, and Senator Obama will be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin is next on our list. However, he had a pressing meeting, so we would be happy to go to a Republican.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, if the Chair would allow me to thank the Senator from Wisconsin, he has been an energetic, enthusiastic advocate for a very long time. He is not always hard to please. I want to particularly say ``thank you'' to him.

Objection.

Objection.

Yes, there is.

Mr. President, I rise to support the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is critically important that we continue and improve upon this successful effort that has made a difference in the lives of so many children.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, as well as their staffs, for the countless hours they have spent in order to bring this bipartisan compromise before us today.

Like all compromises, the bill is not perfect. I, along with several of my colleagues, voted for a budget resolution that included an additional $50 billion for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. I understand that fiscal constraints make it difficult to fund a sum of that magnitude. But at the same time, no dollar spent to insure a child is wasted.

History of the Program

I am proud to have supported this program since its inception in 1997. At that time, there were too many working families who played by the rules and could not afford health insurance for their children. They had just a little too much to qualify for Medicaid or other Government programs, but not enough income to be able to afford the premiums that private insurance requires.

So a Republican Congress and a Democratic President came together to create the Children's Health Insurance Program, which has enjoyed a decade of broad bipartisan support.

The success has been clear. Twenty-one percent of the children in California were uninsured when the Children's Health Insurance Program launched. Six years later, in 2005, that rate had fallen to 14 percent, despite economic downturns, which commonly lead to increases in the number of uninsured.

It is now time for a Republican President and a Democratic Congress to come to together to allow this program to continue to fulfill its promise.

Summary of Legislation

The bill we are considering today will allow this program's success to continue and make significant improvements. This legislation would:

Invest $35 billion to provide health insurance coverage to 3.2 million children who are currently uninsured. This will keep the 6.6 million children already enrolled in the program from losing coverage.

Give States the tools they need to find and enroll these uninsured children. Six million of the nine million uninsured children in the United States today are eligible for Medicaid, or they are eligible for the Children's Health Insurance Program. These families deserve to know they are eligible for coverage, and they ought to receive it without unnecessary bureaucracy and additional paperwork.

Tobacco Tax Increase

These improvements are funded with an increase in the Federal tobacco tax, to $1 per package of cigarettes. Not only will this increase fund needed health insurance for children, it will create significant health improvements.

We must be very clear about the serious implications of tobacco use. It has to be understood that:

Tobacco is linked to at least 10 different kinds of cancer.

Tobacco use accounts for about 30 percent of all cancer deaths.

Tobacco use remains the top cause of preventable death in the United States.

According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, this tax will prevent an additional 1,873,000 children alive

today from ever becoming smokers. And this prevents them from becoming cancer victims later in life. Of this I am certain.

During my time in the Senate, I have worked to make the eradication of cancer a top priority. I strongly believe that we can eliminate the death and suffering caused by cancer in my lifetime. I have worked with the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute. I have spoken to leading cancer researchers, and patients and their families.

And over and over again, I have heard that tobacco is a leading cause of cancer.

There is much about cancer that we still do not understand and that we cannot control. But the relationship between tobacco and cancer could not be clearer.

The one thing we can do, immediately, to stop cancer deaths, is to reduce tobacco use. This legislation takes a step in that direction, while providing health coverage for children in the process.

Importance of health insurance for children

We know that when it comes to children, health insurance matters. It can determine whether a child receives appropriate treatment, and even if he lives or dies. According to a Families USA study conducted this year,

An uninsured child admitted to the hospital as the result of an injury is twice as likely to die during his or her hospital stay than a child with insurance.

Uninsured children admitted to the hospital with middle ear infections are less than half as likely to get ear tubes inserted than children with insurance.

These are not rare occurrences. As any parent will attest, children get into plenty of accidents, and children get lots of ear infections. No child should suffer a worse outcome because her parents could not afford health insurance.

CHIP is not Government Health Care

Frankly, I am quite surprised that the Senate is not unanimously endorsing the compromise we have before us today. I was stunned when President Bush indicated he would veto it.

Unfortunately, some are attempting to use this debate to score political points, and in the process, are portraying the Children's Health Insurance Program in an unfair light.

Let us be clear. The Children's Health Insurance Program is not Government-run health care. Doctors, nurses and parents still make medical decisions. And in California, our Healthy Families program relies on commercial managed care plans.

California offers 24 health plans, 6 dental plans, and 3 vision plans.

In fact, 99.72 percent of Californians in Healthy Families have a choice between two health plans.

In four of our largest counties, families can choose between as many as seven plans.

Twenty-four different health plans in one State. That is certainly not a form of ``socialized medicine.'' Many employers providing private insurance cannot afford to give their workers more than one choice.

This legislation remains targeted at the children and families most in need of assistance. I am from San Francisco, one of the most expensive cities in one of the most expensive States in the Nation. No one will deny that it costs more to live in San Francisco than just about any other place in the country. You spend more on groceries, more on housing, more on transportation, and not surprisingly, more on health care. The California Association of Realtors estimates that in order to purchase the average entry level home in California, a family must have a household income of over $96,000 per year.

Yet, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii, we have a uniform Federal poverty level, which is $20,650 for a family of four. President Bush insists that no family above twice this poverty level, or $41,300, could possibly need additional help to afford health insurance. I strongly disagree.

I would like to challenge anyone to support two children on $41,300 annual income in California, and find the $11,480 necessary to purchase the average family insurance policy. It is nearly impossible. This is precisely why we created the Children's Health Insurance Program 10 years ago, to prevent hard-working families from falling through the cracks.

This legislation maintains the State flexibility necessary to do just that.

California Stories

As a mother and grandmother, I know that there are few things worse than having a sick child. I cannot imagine the dilemma of a mother or father who knows that their child needs medical attention, but must also consider whether that treatment will have a catastrophic impact on their family's finances.

The Herman family from Sonoma County, CA, found themselves in this situation, twice in 1 month. Daughter Amber Herman fell and hurt her arm. Three-year-old Jacob shoved a rock in his ear during a family camping trip. Parents Penny and Peter Herman are self-employed small business owners, unable to afford private insurance.

The Hermans faced a $5000 out-of-pocket medical bill for their care. And Penny was pregnant with the couple's third child, Abraham. The family learned they were eligible for Healthy Families, and enrolled in the program. Penny received coverage for her pregnancy from Medi-Cal. All three children now have comprehensive health care coverage.

The Nunez family in Solano County, California never worried about health insurance; they were always covered under their father Pablo's union health plan. Pablo started his own business and he, wife Sandra, and their four children lost their coverage. Through outreach efforts, the family learned a few months later that their kids might qualify for coverage. They did, and all four Nunez children were enrolled in Healthy Families before they had a health care emergency.

These stories show that a robust Children's Health Insurance Program, coupled with good information and a straightforward enrollment process, makes a real difference in the lives of countless families.

Conclusion

Without action, these children and many others will risk losing this insurance coverage. It is my hope that the President will reconsider his ill-advised veto threat and sign this bipartisan legislation into law. While the President may want to advance his own health care reform ideas, it is not fair to hold millions of uninsured children hostage in the process. I welcome a wide-ranging debate on how to reform our health care system, after this bill is signed and the State Children's Health Insurance Program is protected.

This is a successful bipartisan program. It must be reauthorized, and the American people must make it clear to President Bush that they will accept no less.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a section-by-section analysis of the bill we are about to vote on, including legislative history endorsed by the three principal Senate authors of the legislation: myself, Chairman Lieberman and Majority Leader Reid.

Mr. President, how much time does our side have?

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to say something in response.

Basically, the earmark language is formed on the DeMint language that was in the Senate bill. What happened was that staff sat down with all of the Parliamentarians for several hours to determine the workability under Senate rules and procedures of the language. Amendments were made that would make the language workable.

Now the Senator from South Carolina contends that the Parliamentarians should review the entire bill and rule on whether each and every earmark is listed by the Chair and vet that earmark.

When our offices spoke with the Parliamentarian's office, we realized that this was not a workable situation and could lead to gridlock in the Senate. Now, maybe that is what the junior Senator from South Carolina wants, but I, for one, believe the American people want us to carry out their business.

There is full disclosure. There is full transparency. The committee chairs must certify that the earmark list is complete. It must be published on the Internet 48 hours before it comes before the Senate. Disclosure and transparency is what earmark reform is all about. No more dark of night additions to bills, even when the conference committee is often closed.

Once again, if the junior Senator from South Carolina had allowed a conference, Members would have been able to sit down in the full light of day and, Member to Member, House to Senate, discuss this. But instead, he alone--he alone--despite importation after importation to allow the conference to go ahead, would not allow it to go ahead. One Member. That effectively would have stopped the bill--stopped the bill. Instead, the majority leader and the Speaker of the House, after the bill passed the House by a wide margin, believed this was too important to let one Member--one Member--stop it. So they figured a way to bring a bill from the House, which is what is now before us.

To me, this is all sour milk, spoiled milk. He would have stopped the bill dead if he could have his way. But it didn't happen that way. And you know, there is more than one Member of the Senate. There are more than 2, 3, 4 or 5; there are 100 Members. Members' views have to be taken into consideration.

Yes, there was some change in the language, but there is nothing in the change of language that in any way, shape or form stops full disclosure or the certification of the committee chair or stops putting it on the Internet 48 hours before it comes to the board. It is real reform.

I hope there will be the votes here for cloture. I urge the Senate of the United States to vote for cloture on what is the most significant ethics and lobbying reform bill since Watergate.

Mr. President, I rise today to address an important development in the way our votes our counted. Last November, California elected a new chief election officer--Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Secretary Bowen served in the California Legislature, where she had a reputation as a dedicated advocate for greater protections of our voting systems. Upon becoming secretary of state, she called for a ``top-to-bottom'' review of all voting systems used in California. This was a dynamic and appropriate step, given the heartburn that electronic voting systems have caused voters nationwide.

The problems with paperless voting systems are clear. Computers are no substitute for a paper record. We want to know where our most important documents are--and we don't leave them on the computer. Votes should be no different.

Many events over the last few years have raised great concerns about paperless voting systems. In a congressional race in Sarasota, FL, about 18,000 ballots had no recorded vote. The final vote count divided the candidates by only 300-odd votes. So-called ``under-votes'' occur in every election. But the rate in Florida's 13th Congressional District was unusually high. And because there was no verified paper record, we may never know who really won that election.

Some say paper ballots can malfunction or be manipulated just as easily as these computers. I strongly disagree. When paper records fail, we can see that they have failed. If paper records are stolen, or disappear, we will notice their absence. But when malfunctions or security gaps occur in paperless voting systems, there is no easy way for voters or election officials to know that something has gone wrong. It is for this reason I support optical scan paper systems--or, at minimum, voting systems that produce a paper record verified by the voter.

So it is entirely appropriate that Secretary Bowen performed this test. Californians go to the polls in 6 months to cast their votes in the presidential primary. They must have confidence in their voting systems. With the cooperation of several voting system vendors, the University of California assembled several teams to review the systems. The teams examined the systems' source code, their physical and software defenses, and the ability of people with disabilities to use these systems. The systems fell short in all three tests. In a short span of time, computer scientists identified a number of major vulnerabilities with the voting systems. And these experts were able to hack the vote in less than 5 weeks.

It is important to note that many election officials employ security measures to protect their systems from these kinds of attacks. In this test, the focus was on the voting system's defenses alone--no external protections were employed. Even without such protections, the results of this examination clearly indicate we need to improve these systems.

A few examples of what the University of California experts were able to do: First, researchers were able to gain access to the internal computer system by breaking or bypassing the locks in the voting systems. In the case of one voting system, ordinary office objects were used to gain access. Second, researchers were able replace existing software with a new, corrupt virus that fed incorrect election data to the system. This attack used a program that appeared to change the text, but instead replaced the original software with corrupted code. Many small jurisdictions may lack the technical ability to identify and protect against these attacks. Third, while election officials can test these systems, experts noted that software distinguishes between election mode and testing mode. This could allow a virus to instruct the system to run properly during a test--but allow it to be corrupted during an election. Even counties that test their systems often could be vulnerable. Finally, the team was able to develop a device that would allow unauthorized access--and allow someone wishing to corrupt the ballot box to change the system's vote count.

What does all this mean for elections in the United States?

It means we should to follow the lead of Secretary Bowen, and take a very

careful look at our voting systems. It means the argument for paper as an essential part of voting systems is becoming more and more convincing. It means we should watch and carefully assess the new standards for testing voting systems that will be employed for the first time in December. I hope these standards have a significant impact, that they catch the vulnerabilities of these systems.

I believe the bill I introduced in May will lead to great improvements in the technology and the processes of elections. The Ballot Integrity Act would immediately prohibit new purchases of paperless voting systems. By 2010, it would require a voter-verified paper record to be produced by all voting systems used in federal elections. It would ensure that laboratories that test voting systems would not be hand-picked by vendors. And it would bar wireless and internet components in voting systems. In addition, States would have to document which individuals have access to voting systems, and they would have to agree on ways to train poll workers on how to operate machinery. This approach deals with all elements of the voting process--and recognizes that good voting equipment cannot be secure without good procedures to protect the integrity of the vote.

While the debate rages over how California should respond to this new report, it is important to stick to the basics. Vote verification is the new consensus. More than half the States use paper records to preserve the vote count.

I know Americans are passionate about ensuring that their votes are counted. California has taken an important step--and uncovered some disturbing information. The Senate should support improving Federal elections by passing the Ballot Integrity Act.

Mr. President, today I recognize the 50 years of great work by the League to Save Lake Tahoe.

The League to Save Lake Tahoe has a long history of fighting to protect what I consider to be the crown jewel of the Sierra. The league was founded in 1957 as the Tahoe Improvement and Conservation Association to fight runaway development in one of our Nation's most beautiful regions. Since then, its membership has grown to 4,500 people, but its mission remains the same: to protect Lake Tahoe's famously clear waters and the surrounding area's natural beauty.

Protecting Lake Tahoe is an issue very dear to my heart. My love for Tahoe goes back to my childhood, when I attended camp and rode horses through its beautiful forests. Today however, the lake's health is threatened. Water clarity has declined from 102 feet in 1968 to 68 feet today, and the forests are more susceptible to catastrophic wildfires.

The League to Save Lake Tahoe was influential in developing the Environmental Improvement Program that identified actions that needed to be taken to help restore Lake Tahoe and instrumental in organizing the 1997 Presidential Forum. The league has continued to display an unwavering commitment to protecting the irreplaceable natural resources the Lake Tahoe Basin is blessed with.

I would like to congratulate the League to Save Lake Tahoe on a half century of outstanding environmental stewardship and wish them the best of luck in their continuing mission to Keep Tahoe Blue.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to correct a longstanding flaw in the Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index, GPCI, system that negatively impacts physicians in California and several other states.

This legislation will allow counties that are underpaid by at least 5 percent to be reclassified into a payment locality that reflects their own geographic costs.

It holds harmless the counties, predominately rural ones, whose locality average would otherwise drop as other counties are reclassified.

Finally, this legislation is fully offset by requiring that independent diagnostic laboratories comply with state and federal regulations. This will allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, CMS, to take action against unscrupulous operators, predominately in California, that seek Medicare reimbursements for inaccurate and unnecessary diagnostic testing.

This legislation would benefit physicians who are currently underpaid in 10 States: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, and Washington.

Congressman Sam Farr has introduced companion legislation, H.R. 2484, in the House of Representatives, which now has 12 cosponsors.

The Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index measures the cost of providing a Medicare covered service in a geographic area. Medicare payments are supposed to reflect the varying costs of rent, malpractice insurance, and other expenses necessary to operate a medical process. Counties are assigned to ``payment localities'' that are supposed to accurately capture these costs.

Here is the problem: some of these payment localities have not changed since 1997. Others have been in place since 1966. Many areas that were rural even 10 years have experienced significant population growth, as metropolitan areas and suburbs have spread. Many counties now find themselves in payment localities that do not accurately reflect their true practice costs.

These payment discrepancies have a real and serious impact on physicians and the Medicare beneficiaries they are unable to serve. My home State of California has been hit particularly hard.

San Diego County physicians are underpaid by 5.5 percent. A number of physicians have left the county and 60 percent of remaining San Diego physicians report that they cannot recruit new doctors to their practices.

Santa Cruz County receives a 10.2 percent underpayment, and as a result, no physicians are accepting new Medicare patients. Instead, they are moving to neighboring Santa Clara, which has similar practice cost expense, but is reimbursed at a rate that is at least 22 percent higher. This means that seniors often need to travel at least 20 miles to see a physician.

Sacramento County, a major metropolitan area, is underpaid by 4.6 percent. The county's population has grown by 9.6 percent, while the number of physicians has declined by 11 percent.

Sonoma County physicians are paid at least 8 percent less than their geographic practice costs. They have experienced at 10 percent decline in specialists and a 9 percent decline in primary care physicians.

Seniors' Medicare cards are of no value if physicians in their community cannot afford to provide them with health care.

The underpayment problem grows more severe every year, and the longer we wait to address it, the more drastic the solution will need to be. This legislation provides a common sense solution, increasing payment for those facing the most drastic underpayments, while protecting other counties from cuts in the process.

This is an issue of equity. It costs more to provide health care in expensive areas, and physicians serving our seniors must be fairly compensated.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to correct a longstanding flaw in the Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index, GPCI, system that negatively impacts physicians in California and several other states.

This legislation will allow counties that are underpaid by at least 5 percent to be reclassified into a payment locality that reflects their own geographic costs.

It holds harmless the counties, predominately rural ones, whose locality average would otherwise drop as other counties are reclassified.

Finally, this legislation is fully offset by requiring that independent diagnostic laboratories comply with state and federal regulations. This will allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, CMS, to take action against unscrupulous operators, predominately in California, that seek Medicare reimbursements for inaccurate and unnecessary diagnostic testing.

This legislation would benefit physicians who are currently underpaid in 10 States: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, and Washington.

Congressman Sam Farr has introduced companion legislation, H.R. 2484, in the House of Representatives, which now has 12 cosponsors.

The Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index measures the cost of providing a Medicare covered service in a geographic area. Medicare payments are supposed to reflect the varying costs of rent, malpractice insurance, and other expenses necessary to operate a medical process. Counties are assigned to ``payment localities'' that are supposed to accurately capture these costs.

Here is the problem: some of these payment localities have not changed since 1997. Others have been in place since 1966. Many areas that were rural even 10 years have experienced significant population growth, as metropolitan areas and suburbs have spread. Many counties now find themselves in payment localities that do not accurately reflect their true practice costs.

These payment discrepancies have a real and serious impact on physicians and the Medicare beneficiaries they are unable to serve. My home State of California has been hit particularly hard.

San Diego County physicians are underpaid by 5.5 percent. A number of physicians have left the county and 60 percent of remaining San Diego physicians report that they cannot recruit new doctors to their practices.

Santa Cruz County receives a 10.2 percent underpayment, and as a result, no physicians are accepting new Medicare patients. Instead, they are moving to neighboring Santa Clara, which has similar practice cost expense, but is reimbursed at a rate that is at least 22 percent higher. This means that seniors often need to travel at least 20 miles to see a physician.

Sacramento County, a major metropolitan area, is underpaid by 4.6 percent. The county's population has grown by 9.6 percent, while the number of physicians has declined by 11 percent.

Sonoma County physicians are paid at least 8 percent less than their geographic practice costs. They have experienced at 10 percent decline in specialists and a 9 percent decline in primary care physicians.

Seniors' Medicare cards are of no value if physicians in their community cannot afford to provide them with health care.

The underpayment problem grows more severe every year, and the longer we wait to address it, the more drastic the solution will need to be. This legislation provides a common sense solution, increasing payment for those facing the most drastic underpayments, while protecting other counties from cuts in the process.

This is an issue of equity. It costs more to provide health care in expensive areas, and physicians serving our seniors must be fairly compensated.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Casey to introduce legislation to authorize a comprehensive review of our nuclear weapons policy and posture.

Before we ramp up funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program as the administration has requested, we should have a clear, bipartisan consensus on the role nuclear weapons will play in our national security strategy and the impact they will have on our nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

The Nuclear Policy and Posture Review Act of 2007 does three things.

First, it authorizes the President to conduct a nuclear policy review to consider a range of possible roles of nuclear weapons in U.S. security policy. The administration may reach out to outside experts and conduct public hearings to get a wide range of views. The policy review will provide options and recommendations for a nuclear posture review.

This report is due on September 1, 2009.

Second, following the completion of the nuclear policy review, it authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of the U.S. to clarify U.S. nuclear deterrence policy and strategy. This report is due March 1, 2010.

Finally, it zeros out funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program until the policy review and posture review reports have been submitted to Congress.

In his testimony on March 29, 2007, before the House Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee, former Senator Sam Nunn, Chairman of Nuclear Threat Initiative, noted that:

On the [Reliable Replacement Warhead] itself, if Congress

gives a green light to this program in our current world

environment, I believe that this will be: misunderstood by

our allies; exploited by our adversaries; complicate our work

to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons and . . .

make resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all

the more difficult.

I could not agree more.

Indeed, I remain deeply concerned about this administration's nuclear weapons policy.

As a U.S. Senator, I have worked with colleagues in the House and Senate to stop the re-opening of the nuclear door and the development of new nuclear weapons.

Together, we have eliminated funding for the Advanced Concepts Initiative, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and the Modern Pit Facility.

These were consequential victories but the fight is far from over.

For fiscal year 2008, the administration requested $118 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program; $88 million in the National Nuclear Security administration's budget and $30 million in the Department of Defense's budget.

These funds would be used for Phase 2A activities: design definition and cost study.

This would represent approximately a four-fold increase over fiscal year 2007 funding of $24.7 million.

The House, however, rejected the administration's request and zeroed out funding for RRW in its fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. In its report accompanying the legislation, the House cited the lack of a definitive nuclear weapons policy review as a key reason for withholding funding for what will be a costly new nuclear warhead program. It stated:

The lack of any definitive analysis or strategic assessment

defining the objectives of a future nuclear stockpile makes

it impossible to weigh the relative merits of investing

billions of taxpayer dollars in new nuclear weapon production

activities when the United States is facing the problem of

having too large a stockpile as a Cold War legacy. Currently,

there exists no convincing rationale for maintaining the

large number of existing Cold War nuclear weapons, much less

producing additional warheads, or for the DoD requirements

that drive the management of the DOE nuclear weapons complex.

While the Senate bill did not follow suit, it did cut $22 million from the administration's request, for a total of $66 million, and restricted activities to Phase 2A.

I believe we can match the House's action and this bill would do just that.

The administration is clearly getting nervous about the prospects for funding for RRW.

On Wednesday, the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, and State released a 4-page white paper on nuclear weapons strategy: ``National Security and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century''. It affirmed the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and sought to justify funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. Among other things, it stated that the Reliable Replacement Warhead program is critical to sustaining long-term confidence in the nuclear stockpile and will help reduce the stockpile and move us away from nuclear testing; and any delay to the program will force the U.S. to maintain a larger stockpile, invest in costly and risky Life Extension Programs, and increase the likelihood that we will have to resume nuclear testing.

These arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

Indeed the evidence clearly shows that there is no need to rush forward with increased funding for RRW. Let us take a close look at the status of our nuclear weapons arsenal.

Are there currently problems with the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal?

No, for each of the past 11 years the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense have certified that the nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable.

Has the Pentagon asked for a new warhead for new missions?

No, there is no new military requirement to replace existing, well- tested warheads.

What about the plutonium pit, the ``trigger'' of a nuclear weapon? In past years, the administration requested funding for a Modern Pit Facility that could build up to 450 pits a year arguing that the pits in our current stockpile were reaching the end of their life-span.

Is our stockpile at risk due to aging pits?

No, a December 2006 report by the National Laboratories showed that plutonium pits have a life-span of at least 85 years, and possibly up to 100 years.

That report validated Congressional action to eliminate funding for the Modern Pit Facility. I am pleased that the administration listened and did not request funding for the facility in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.

Are we at risk for resuming nuclear testing?

No, as I have argued our stockpile is safe and secure and will clearly remain so for the foreseeable future.

If the likelihood of resuming nuclear testing is increasing it is due to the fact that the administration has, in past years, requested funding to lower the time to test readiness at the Nevada test site from 24-36 months to 18 months and, above all, refused to support ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT.

What about costs? I find it interesting that the administration would cite the costs of successful Life Extension Programs as a reason to ramp up funding for the RRW.

Has the administration shared with us what it will cost to replace the warhead on our deployed nuclear arsenal with a new Reliable Replacement Warhead?

The answer is no. The administration has remained silent about when the supposed cost savings from RRW will ultimately kick in.

In fact, the development of a new nuclear warhead will likely add billions of dollars to the American taxpayer's bill at a time when, as noted above, the stockpile is safe and reliable. As the House Energy and Water Appropriations report argued:

Under any realistic future U.S. nuclear defense scenario,

the existing legacy stockpile will continue to provide the

nation's nuclear deterrent for well over the next two to

three decades. The effort by the NNSA to apply urgency to

developing a significant production capacity for the RRW

while lacking any urgency to rationalize an oversized complex

appears to mean simply more costs to the American taxpayer.

Before we move any further with this program which would add a new warhead to the stockpile, we should have a better understanding of the role nuclear weapons will play in our security policy in a post-Cold War and post 9/11 world.

If we as a country are going to move away from massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons and explore more conventional alternatives, does it make sense to add a new warhead to the stockpile?

If we are committed to strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, what impact would a Reliable Replacement Warhead have on those efforts?

If the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program can certify the safety and the reliability of our existing nuclear stockpile, should we shift resources from RRW to more pressing concerns?

It is common sense to ask these questions and engage in comprehensive review and debate about these options before we make the decision on manufacturing new warheads.

As it stands now, we are addressing this issue backwards and behind closed doors.

That is, we are rushing to develop a new warhead without an understanding of the role it will play in our nuclear weapons policy and national security strategy and without public input that will lead to a bipartisan policy.

Let us be clear: a rushed, four page white paper is simply not sufficient to answer these questions and make decisions about developing new nuclear warheads.

The administration has promised a more detailed report but its haste to put out this paper suggests that it is more intent on rushing the development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program than in taking a sober,

unbiased look at our nuclear weapons policy and posture.

A lack of a substantive debate and review means we are not paying sufficient attention to the potential negative consequences of RRW.

Speeding up the development of a new nuclear warhead may send the wrong message to Iran; North Korea; and other would-be nuclear weapon states and encourage the very proliferation we are trying to prevent.

What to us may appear to be a safer, more reliable weapon could appear to others to be a new weapon with new missions and a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a report last month acknowledging that a Reliable Replacement Warhead ``could lead to a final selected design that is certifiable without a nuclear test.''

Yet, the report also concluded that absent a comprehensive review of nuclear policy and stockpile needs, the purpose and intention of RRW could be widely misinterpreted abroad.

Pointing out that there has been no high level statement about nuclear weapons policy since the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, it called on the administration to develop a bipartisan policy on the future of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons policy before moving ahead with RRW. It stated:

In the absence of a clear nuclear posture, many

interpretations are possible [about U.S. nuclear weapons

policy] and the lack of a national understanding and

consensus on the role of U.S. nuclear weapons puts any new

approach at considerable risk at home and abroad. For

example, an RRW plan that emphasizes the goal of sustaining

the deterrent without nuclear testing could be perceived

quite differently from one that focuses on future flexibility

to develop and deploy nuclear weapons for new military

mission.

It goes on to state:

. . . nuclear weapons are ultimately an instrument of

policy and strategy rather than of war fighting, and only

with the leadership of the president can there be major

changes in that instrument.

Unfortunately we have not seen such leadership from this administration.

Because it pursued the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, because it sought to lower the time- to-test readiness at the Nevada test site from 24-26 months to 18 months, because it sought to build a Modern Pit Facility that could produce up to 450 pits a year, this administration has lost the credibility to take a fresh and open look at nuclear weapons policy and posture.

Only a new administration, free from the constraints of the heated debates of the past, will have the authority to conduct a comprehensive review of our nuclear weapons policy and posture.

A bipartisan consensus on this policy is essential. It will let the world know exactly where we stand on these important issues and help clear up any confusion about our intentions.

Friend and foe alike will know that regardless of who holds power in Congress or the White House, the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy will not change.

It will strengthen our efforts to convince other states to forego the development of nuclear weapons and make the world safer from the threat of nuclear war.

I believe that bipartisan policy is beginning to emerge.

In a January 4, 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, ``A World Free of Nuclear Weapons'', George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn laid out a compelling vision for a world free of the threat of nuclear war.

They laid a set of common sense steps the U.S. and other nuclear weapon states can take to make this happen including: taking nuclear weapons off high-alert status; substantially reducing the size of nuclear stockpiles; eliminating short-ranged nuclear weapons; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; securing all stocks of weapons, weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium around the world; getting control of the uranium enrichment process; stopping production of fissile material for nuclear weapons globally; resolving regional confrontations that encourage the development of nuclear weapons.

They conclude:

Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear

weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal

would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative

consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could

have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future

generations. Without that bold vision, the actions will not

be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the

vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible.

We should pay close attention to these words.

In conclusion, let me say that there is a big difference between an RRW program that increases the reliability of the existing stockpile and one that leads to a resumption of nuclear testing.

Congress should ask the tough questions to ensure that this is not a back door to new nuclear weapons with new missions and new rounds of testing.

I firmly believe we should zero out for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program until the next administration takes a serious look at our nuclear weapons programs and issues a bipartisan policy on the size of the future stockpile, testing, and nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to craft that sensible, bipartisan nuclear weapons policy that will make Americans safe and allow us to reclaim a leadership role in the fight against nuclear proliferation.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, yesterday we lost a man who was the heart and soul of the great San Francisco 49er teams of the 1980s. Bill Walsh was a great coach and a fine friend.

I rise today with Senator Boxer to introduce a resolution to honor the life and career of a pioneer in the field of football, a true leader and teacher, and a dedicated husband, father and friend.

He touched so many in the bay area. He led the 49ers to three Super Bowls. And he gave this city a shot in the arm in some of its darkest hours.

I became mayor in 1978. Bill Walsh became head coach in 1979, after honing his skills at Stanford.

Many forget that the 49ers before Bill Walsh were an unremarkable team. They hadn't made the playoffs in years. The team was filled with journeymen.

San Francisco was a baseball town, and football played second fiddle.

But just 2 years later in the 1981 season Bill Walsh led the 49ers on an improbable run to a Super Bowl victory.

Led by a quarterback named Montana, these 49ers played an exciting new brand of football.

Only later would we discover that Bill Walsh had revolutionized the game--he transformed smash-mouth football into the elegant ``West Coast Offense.''

And this team became the stuff of legends. The players became household names. Montana. Rice. Lott. Clark. Young.

Even the plays became mythical. Who can forget ``The Catch''?

And Cinderella became a powerhouse and a powerhouse became a dynasty.

I look back on that time with great fondness.

One of the photos that I treasure most is in my home in Washington.

It was the parade after the first Super Bowl victory. Bill and Eddie DeBartolo and I were sitting on the rim of a car. We were worried that no one would show up. Some said that San Francisco doesn't do parades.

And then we turned down Market Street. And there were a million plus San Franciscans lining the streets.

I will never forget that moment.

Bill Walsh meant so much to this city.

He made the 49ers great at a point when the city needed it most.

The city was fragmented and divided in the early 1980s. Mayor George Moscone had been assassinated a few years earlier. There were riots. And there was little to bring us together.

But on Sundays, the differences melted away. The tensions diminished. The anxieties subsided.

There was nothing like Montana to Rice for an 80-yard touchdown. Nothing like a victory over the Los Angeles Rams. Nothing like a Super Bowl championship.

And on Mondays, after a victory, you would see a changed city. A little bit nicer, a little less mean.

So Bill Walsh brought this city together in ways that he, nor I, would ever really understand.

Football became the glue to bind this city together.

And during the 10 years I came to know Bill, I came to admire him, respect him, and love him.

And he made me, like so many others, a 49ers fan for life.

Bill Walsh, though, was more than a coach.

He was a leader. A mentor. A friend.

He didn't just revolutionize how football is played, but how it is coached and taught.

He believed, as I do, that the devil is in the details. And that you have to practice right to play right. He was the first to script the first 15 plays in a game.

And he didn't just coach men. He shaped them into good football players and good citizens.

His greatest skill may have been as a scout, identifying raw talent and sculpting it into masterpieces.

They said that Joe Montana didn't have a strong enough arm, that Jerry Rice wasn't fast enough, that Steve Young wasn't disciplined enough.

But Bill saw what other people missed. He saw the intangibles. He saw leadership. And work ethic. And character.

And there is no one who wouldn't want a Bill Walsh-coached player on their team.

Bill was a mentor as well. He wanted his players and coaches to fulfill their potential more than anyone. He encouraged them to spread their wings and go out on their own.

And you can see the results, more than half the coaches in the league have been in some way touched by Bill Walsh--either directly like Seattle Seahawk's Coach Mike Holmgren or Indianopolis Colts' Coach Tony Dungy or indirectly, by the second and third generation coaches who may not have coached or played under Bill, but are teaching his offense nonetheless.

But I think what we will miss most is not Bill Walsh the coach, but Bill Walsh the person.

He was decent, and good, and kind.

Sure, he was tough. In football, just as in public life, you have to be.

But he was fair. He expected his players and coaches to spend the time and effort it takes to be great. But he did not expect anything from them that he was not prepared to give himself.

Bill once said, ``Playing to one's full potential is the only purpose of playing at all.''

The good news is that Bill fulfilled his purpose. He played to his full potential in everything he did.

I know I speak for all San Francisco when I say that this is a sad day. He will truly be missed.

Bill Walsh may have been called a ``Genius'' when it comes to football, but his legacy goes well beyond the Xs and Os.

He touched this city, and we owe him a debt that can never be repaid.

If I may, I thank the Senator from Idaho for those comments. He is absolutely right in what is happening. It is happening to a great extent as well in California. Referring to this chart, I wish to show the Senate what has happened. Agriculture is moving to Baja, Mexicali, and the Nogales regions--more than 20,750 acres of agriculture have moved from the United States to this area here and more than 8,600 employees have moved to this area in Mexico. Over here, more than 25,350 acres have moved to the center of Mexico, with more than 2,460 employees.

I thank my colleague from California for this. I speak on her behalf as well. Agriculture is in crisis. We have a $34 billion industry. Labor is down by as much as 30 percent. What is happening is farmers are renting land in Mexico. They don't want us to know that. It is difficult to get these figures, but we got them, and this is what is happening. Now, what will happen to the land in California, Idaho, Washington, and in other places? It will lie fallow. Farmers will soon decide they would rather farm in Mexico, with fewer restrictions on pesticides and lower phytosanitary standards. Their land will be sold for development and we will lose our farmland in this Nation.

The catastrophe, the crisis, is now. The harvest system is coming up now. What Senator Boxer, Senator Craig, and many others ask is please pass this 5-year pilot program and enable people who have worked in agriculture, who will continue to work in agriculture, to be able to do so legally. Reform the H2-A program so it functions for the rest of us.

The fact of the matter is, 90 percent of agriculture is undocumented labor. Why doesn't the Senate recognize that? Why doesn't the Senate recognize you cannot get Americans to do this work?

Why do we want to drown American agriculture? Why do we want to send it over the border?

What Senator Craig, Senator Boxer, and I are saying is, with this money, you take away our leverage to get this bill done, unless we can have some kind of commitment that we can do this bill as a stand-alone bill or move it on another bill. We ought to just face that right now, that Senator Craig and I would like to have a commitment that we can put this bill on another bill, or move it as a stand-alone bill without amendments, and hopefully get it passed so agriculture in America can harvest their crops this fall. We ought to have a discussion because this money we all would like to do, no question about it. We all want border security. We all want to fund border security.

(Ms. CANTWELL assumed the Chair.)

I certainly will.

The Senator from California is absolutely correct. It does. It pulls together all of us. We believe we have 60 votes in this body for AgJOBS because we believe there are 60 Senators at least who understand what the problem is, there is no question about it.

Senator Boxer has been on this issue for at least 7 years. Senator Craig, the Senator from Idaho, was the original sponsor of AgJOBS, along with Senator Boxer and Senator Kennedy. That was 7 years ago. Is that not correct, I ask the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig?

Seven years ago. This bill is known by everybody in this body, and everyone in this body should know there is a need. We believe we have the votes in the House to pass the bill as well if it is a stand-alone bill, a 5-year pilot that enables farmers to hire workers.

Let me say one other thing. There is a myth out there that anybody can do agricultural labor. If you stand by a freeway and watch people pick lettuce, you will see precision movements, you will see an organized crew, you will see they are trained in how to do it, and you will also see it is backbreaking labor that Americans will not do.

There is no industry in the United States that faces the crisis agriculture does right now, I say to Senator Boxer. She knows that. I know that. We know what is happening to our farms and growers. Whether they operate 50,000 acres or 50 acres, it is the same problem. It takes, in California, 40,000 workers to harvest grapes. They are grown in four counties. It takes 40,000 workers to harvest 1 crop.

Does the Senator from Texas want me to yield?

Speaking through the Chair to the Senator from Texas--I see the majority leader is going to say something. Madam President, is he going to make us an offer?

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

I believe I had the floor.

If I may, through the Chair to the majority leader, my interest was piqued in what the majority leader had to say. My question is, Would the majority leader be prepared to give Senator Boxer, Senator Craig, Senator Hutchison, and me a commitment that perhaps the majority leader and the minority leader could sit down and agree to allow a vote on AgJOBS as part of the farm bill without amendments, or some version of AgJOBS?

If I may, through the Chair to the Senator from Georgia, what we have said is, a version of the AgJOBS bill.

The AgJOBS bill was negotiated over 7 years between the growers and the United Farm Workers Union and others. So it is a negotiated product. I actually thought that we had satisfied the Senator's concerns in many of our discussions. I am trying to recall, but I believe there were at least three areas where we made some changes specifically because of the Senator's concerns in the discussions that we had.

So I thought we had agreement on the H-2A part of the bill, which I believe was your interest, in return for which, with respect to the earned adjustment part of the bill, I would be happy to discuss this with you more. But the bill is based on, if a worker has worked in agriculture, he or she can submit documentation to that effect, for so many hours over so many years, that individual can get what we call a

blue card in the original bill and continue to work in agriculture for a substantial additional period. If they satisfied the hours, the filing, the taxes, and everything required of them, then they could apply after that period for a green card. That is as far as our bill went, the original bill.

I thought the problem area was citizenship.

If I might, through the Chair to the Senator from Georgia, I would like to make one point.

I understand your concern is with the H-2A part of the bill. The other part of the bill is for different States because what happens in my State is, these crews work different produce. They go from one harvest to another to another to another because the harvests are staged at different times. So the bill has two component parts to it.

Of course, we are willing to talk. We are happy to sit down and talk. But we tried to do that with you, as you know, and I thought we had a product that we agreed to.

My understanding is the Senator from Idaho would like to ask a question.

If I may respond through the Chair to the Senator from Georgia, we had hoped, I say to the Senator, that we had worked it out. We believe there are 60 votes for the bill. We are happy, all of us--those of us who have worked on this bill--to sit down with you and go over it again and hopefully have something for the September farm bill. I think it is important.

The problem with waiting until September is part of the harvest is over, and we have lost a crop. I cannot tell you how much is going to be on the ground come September, but I can tell you in my State it is going to be a substantial amount. I worry about land lying fallow and then being sold by farmers for development and the loss of rich, great American farmland. I don't think that is what either one of us want.

We will try to work with you, Senator Boxer, Senator Craig and I, and, hopefully, we will be able to come up with something by September.

So I thank the Senator and the Chair.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed today 5-year extension of the Higher Education Act to renew major programs that help ensure our Nation's students attain a college degree.

This legislation, with strong bipartisan support, also includes new measures to address rising college costs and would reform the student loan system so that it better serves students.

Last week, the Senate passed an important piece of legislation that will provide over $17 billion in new grant aid to low-income college students--$2.5 billion of which would go to help California's students afford college.

Nationwide, students and their families are struggling to pay the growing costs of a college education.

Four-year public university costs increased 52 percent, while the median family income only increased 3 percent during the school years from 1995-96 to 2005-06.

In California, even after financial aid is taken into account, 33 percent of the median family income is needed to pay for 1 year of college at a 4-year public college.

As a result, many students rely on loans to finance their education-- the percentage of undergraduates at 4-year public colleges with student loans has risen to 66 percent, especially among low-income students.

At the same time, lenders have been provided substantial government subsidies beyond what is required for participation and competition.

Specifically, this bill would raise the authorized level for the Pell grant maximum award by $1,990 over 5 years--from the current $4,310 level to $6,300; authorize the U.S. Department of Education to award competitive grants for Teacher Preparation Programs that help recruit and retain high-quality teachers in high-need schools; improve programs that help low-income middle and high school students prepare for college. For example, GEAR UP program grantees, which serve over 150,000 California students, would be permitted to use funds for tutoring, extended school day programs or scholarships; create a nationwide ``Higher Education Price Increase Watch List'' of colleges whose costs are increasing at a rate greater than other schools and create a higher education price comparison index to help students and parents compare college tuition costs; require colleges to recommend lenders to their students based on the best interests of the students. It also prohibits payments from lenders to schools that create conflicts of interest; and simplify student financial aid forms by creating a new 2-page form for low-income students, and phasing out the current 10-page form for all applicants within 5 years.

The key reforms in this legislation will help ensure that college is more affordable for our young people and that they receive the education they deserve to succeed in our global economy. I am pleased that the Senate will pass this important legislation today.

Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Illinois on his remarks. Not only were they heartfelt but they were certainly cogent and certainly correct.

My warmest congratulations to the, Senator.

Madam President, I come to speak to the passage of the joint resolution renewing the import sanctions on Burma for another year. This legislation has been introduced for several years now by Senator McConnell and myself. I began working on this issue with Senator Bill Cohen a long time ago when he was in this body.

Yesterday, the House passed the joint resolution by voice vote and the Senate Finance Committee reported the McConnell-Feinstein bill to the Senate floor on a unanimous bipartisan basis, so I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.

These sanctions are set to expire in 2 days, that is July 26, and any delay will only serve to benefit the ruling military junta in Burma-- the State Peace and Development Council is its name--at the expense of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and leader of the National League for Democracy Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition in Burma.

I remind my colleagues that the National League for Democracy, headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, decisively won the last parliamentary elections in 1989. These sanctions will be renewed for 1 year, so we will have a chance to discuss them in a year if the military junta should decide to make some reforms. But, simply put, the junta to date has failed to take any meaningful steps to release Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. There are over a thousand political prisoners many of her political party, elected to the Parliament, who remain in prison.

Last month, we celebrated the 62nd birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi. She spent her day, as she has for most of her past 17 years, alone and under house arrest--17 long years alone in a house in Burma, with no communication with the outside world. In May, the State Peace and Development Council renewed her sentence for yet another year.

I am heartened to know the Senate and the international community are coming together to ensure the abuses and injustices of the military junta in Burma do not go unnoticed.

Earlier this year, 45 Senators signed a letter to U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon, urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu Kyi's release. In a recent letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of State, including former Filipino President Corazon Aquino, former Czech President Vaclav Havel, former British Prime Minister John Major, and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted that:

Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma but

rather peaceful, nonviolent dialog between the military,

National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.

What kind of threat can that be to a government? The calls for Suu Kyi's release are also coming from Burma's neighbors. The Association of Southwest Asian Nations, known as ASEAN, now recognizes that Burma's actions are not an internal matter but a significant threat to peace and stability in the region. At a meeting of senior diplomats last month, ASEAN made a clear call for Aung San Suu Kyi's release. That call is so welcome. I would like to encourage ASEAN to continue to speak out.

Last month, the women of the Senate--and you were one, Madam President--came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma, to express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, to call for her immediate release and urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma.

We did not do this in vain. The United Nations did pass a resolution earlier this year, but unfortunately it was vetoed by China and Russia. At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady Laura Bush, who added her own voice to those calling for peace and democracy in Burma.

Our message is spreading and it is clear and we will not remain silent. We will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored in Burma. Let us not forget that this human rights situation compels us to action. Consider this: There are still 1,300 political prisoners in jail. According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur, over 3,000 villages have been destroyed by the military junta; 70,000 child soldiers have been forcibly recruited; and over half a million people are internally displaced in Burma today; and over 1 million people have fled Burma in the past two decades, destabilizing Burma's neighbors.

The practice of rape as a form of repression has been sanctioned by the Burmese military. Use of forced labor is widespread. Human trafficking is rampant. Burma is the world's second largest opium producer, after Afghanistan, and increasingly a source of trafficking of synthetic narcotics.

Sanctions are not a panacea for every problem, and in many cases they don't work, but in this instance, we still hope they can be effective. Suu Kyi herself has said this:

We would like the world to know that economic sanctions do

not hurt the common people of Burma. We would like the

European Community, the United States and the rest of the

world to be aware that sanctions do help the movement for

democracy in Burma.

Members of this body, this is an amazing woman, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, under house arrest for the better part of 17 years because her party was democratically elected to lead Burma. We should speak out. This resolution is one way of doing that.

I urge its passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, to commend and congratulate the Anaheim Ducks for winning the 2007 Stanley Cup Finals last month.

The Ducks are champions of the National Hockey League for the first time in their 14-year history. After defeating the Minnesota Wild and Vancouver Canucks in the first two rounds of the playoffs, the Ducks won a hard-fought battle with the Detroit Red Wings to reach the Stanley Cup finals for the second time in franchise history. The Ducks reached the pinnacle of the hockey world by displaying the qualities of selflessness, teamwork, and resilience.

This championship team was ably led by head coach Randy Carlyle and star players Teemu Selanne, Jean-Sebastian Giguere, Scott and Rob Niedermayer, and Chris Pronger. This talented crew battled their opponents throughout a 2-month marathon playoff and proudly wear the title of ``champions.''

The Ducks' championship represents the first time that the storied Stanley Cup has been able to call my State, California, its home. We Californians are proud to host this trophy, and we look forward to having it return many more times to our state in the future.

The Ducks have begun a new era of hockey in Southern California and I am sure they will attempt to defend their title with the same heart, sacrifice and passion that brought the Stanley Cup to Anaheim this year.

The Ducks have proven that hockey is alive and well in California.

I also look forward to seeing the other hockey franchises in California, the Los Angeles Kings and San Jose Sharks, compete with the Anaheim Ducks for hockey's greatest prize in the coming years.

The Anaheim Ducks players, coaches, management, and owners have made their community and their fans proud. The entire organization is to be commended and congratulated for their magnificent achievement.

Mr. President, I wish to honor one of the Senate's own, a man who went above and beyond the call of duty to save another's life.

Frederick ``Tim'' McClintock has been a fixture in the Senate for over 30 years. He is a skilled carpenter and a familiar face in the Senate.

He has come to my office on numerous occasions to perform various tasks. He does his job well and is always ready with a smile and a kind word.

Yet, on Friday, July 6, 2007, Tim McClintock was confronted with a terrible scene, well outside the routine of the Senate.

As he headed home at the end of the day, he noticed a man laying face down in the reflecting pool in Lower Senate Park. Without hesitation, Tim McClintock came to his aid. He turned the man over and performed CPR until he was resuscitated. Then with the assistance of a Capitol Police officer, he pulled the man out of the water.

That afternoon, Tim McClintock selflessly and courageously saved a man from drowning.

He would deny that he is a hero.

He was quoted in Roll Call newspaper as saying, ``A hero is someone who risks their own well-being or life. The worst that was going to happen to me is that my feet would get wet.''

His modesty is astounding.

The fact is that acts of compassion and bravery such as these display the true character of a man.

On that day, Tim McClintock demonstrated quick thinking, resourcefulness, bravery, and, above all, compassion and humanity for a stranger. The brave actions that Friday afternoon, as many others rushed home eager to start the weekend, were the actions of a true hero.

So, on behalf of the Senate, I commend the heroism of Frederick ``Tim'' McClintock, who on July 6, 2007, demonstrated the principles of kindness, bravery, and compassion that we value so much.