Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to announce that in accordance with Title V of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Rules and Administration, the Committee has amended the ``Public Transportation Subsidy Regulations.'' Based on the Committee's review of the regulations adopted on August 1, 1992, as amended, the following changes are effective April 24, 2007.

The regulations are amended by deleting and substituting as follows:

Sec. 2, substitute entire section for the following:

Sec. 2. Authority

The Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act (Pub.L. 103-172) allows Federal agencies to participate in state or local government transit programs that encourage employees to use public transportation. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, as amended by the Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century (Pub.L. 105-178) allows employers to give employees as a tax free ``de minimis fringe benefit'' transit fare media up to the maximum monthly amount authorized under section 132(f)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as modified by the Internal Revenue System's published Revenue Procedures, and upon written authority of the Rules Committee.

Sec. 3, (e)

Delete ``Pub. L. 101-509'' and insert ``Pub. L. 103-172''.

Sec. 3, insert definition at end of Section

Insert the following definition at the end of the definition: ``(f) Unique Identifier--A number or token, as approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, designed to be used across all systems in the United States Senate to uniquely identify an individual's set of records within each of those systems.''

Sec. 4, (a)

Delete ``currently not to exceed $105 per month.''

Sec. 4, (e)

Replace entire section with the following language: ``(e) Any fare media purchased under this program may not be sold or exchanged, although exchanges of metro card media are permissible for transportation provided by Virginia Railway Express (VRE), the Maryland Transit Administration's (MARC's) train, or vanpools certified by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).''

Sec. 7

Delete ``social security number'' and insert in its place ``unique identifier.''

Delete ``(currently $105)''.

Sec. 8, (A)

Delete ``Pub. L. 101-509'' and insert ``Pub. L. 103-172''.

Set forth below are the amended regulations which are effective April 24, 2007:

Public Transportation Subsidy Regulations

Sec. 1. Policy

It is the policy of the Senate to encourage employees to

use public mass transportation in commuting to and from

Senate offices.

Sec. 2. Authority

The Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act (Pub. L.

103-172) allows Federal agencies to participate in state or

local government transit programs that encourage employees to

use public transportation. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, as

amended by the Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century

(Pub. L. 105-178) allows employers to give employees as a tax

free ``de minimis fringe benefit'' transit fare media up to

the maximum monthly amount authorized under section

132(f)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

modified by the Internal Revenue System's published Revenue

Procedures, and upon written authority of the Rules

Committee.

Sec. 3. Definitions

(a) Public Mass Transportation--A transportation system

operated by a State or local government, e.g. bus or rail

transit system.

(b) Fare Media--A ticket, pass, or other device, other than

cash, used to pay for transportation on a public mass transit

system.

(c) Office--Refers to a Senate employee's appointing

authority, that is, the Senator, committee chairman, elected

officer, or an official of the Senate who appointed the

employee. For purposes of these regulations, an employee in

the Office of the President pro tempore, Deputy President pro

tempore, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority Whip,

Minority Whip, Secretary of the Conference of the Majority,

or Secretary of the Conference of the Minority shall be

considered to be an employee, whose appointing authority is

the Senator holding such position.

(d) Qualified Employee--An individual employed in a Senate

office whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the

Senate, whose salary is within the limit set by his or her

appointing authority for participation in a transit program

under these regulations, and who is not a member of a car

pool or the holder of any Senate parking privilege.

(e) Qualified Program--Refers to the program of a public

mass transportation system that encourages employees to use

public transportation in accordance with the requirements of

Pub. L. 103-172 whose participation in the Senate program in

accordance with these regulations has been approved by the

Committee on Rules and Administration.

(f) Unique Identifier--A number or token, as approved by

the Committee on Rules and Administration, designed to be

used across all systems in the United States Senate to

uniquely identify an individual's set of records within each

of those systems.

Sec. 4. Program Requirements

(a) Each office within the Senate is authorized to provide

to qualified employees under its supervision a de minimis

fringe employment benefit of transit fare media of a value

not to exceed the amount authorized by statute.

(b) Each appointing authority may establish a salary limit

for participation in this program by his or her employees. If

such salary limit is established, all staff paid at or below

that limit, and who meet the other criteria established in

these regulations, must be permitted to participate in this

program.

(c) For purposes of these regulations, an individual

employed for a partial month in an office shall be considered

employed for the full month in that office.

(d) The fare media purchased by participating offices under

this program shall only be used by qualified employees for

travel to and from their official duty station.

(e) Any fare media purchased under this program may not be

sold or exchanged, although exchanges of Metro Card Media for

transportation provided by Virginia Railway Express (VRE),

the Maryland Transit Administration's MARC trains, or

vanpools certified by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (WMATA).

(f) In addition to any criminal liability, any person

misusing, selling, exchanging or obtaining or using a fare

media in violation of these regulations shall be required to

reimburse the office for the full amount of the fare media

involved and may be disqualified from further participation

in this program.

Sec. 5. Office Administration of Program

Each office electing to participate in this program shall

be responsible for its administration in accordance with

these regulations, shall designate an individual to manage

its program, and may adopt rules for its participation

consistent with these regulations.

An employee who wishes to participate in this program shall

make application with his or her office on a form which shall

include a certification that such person is not a member of a

motor pool, does not have any Senate parking privilege (or

has relinquished same as a condition of participation), will

use the fare media personally for traveling to and from his

or her duty station, and will not exchange or sell the fare

media provided under this program. The application shall

include the following statement:

This certification concerns a matter within the

jurisdiction of an agency of the United States and making a

false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification may render the

maker subject to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Safekeeping and distribution of fare media purchased for an

office is the responsibility of the program manager in that

office. Participating offices may not refund or replace any

damaged, misplaced, lost, or stolen fare media.

Sec. 6. Senate Stationery Room Responsibilities

The only program currently available in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area at this time is ``Metro Pool,'' a program established through Metro by the District of Columbia. Transit benefits will be provided through Metro Pool for participating offices in the Washington, DC area. The Committee on Rules and Administration shall enter into an agreement with Metro Pool for purchase of fare media by the Senate Stationery Room as required by participating offices on a monthly basis. A participating office shall purchase the fare media with its authorized appropriated funds from the Senate Stationery Room through its stationery account pursuant to 2 U.S.C.Sec. 119.

Each office shall present to the Senate Stationery Room

[two copies of] the certification referred to in section 7 of

these regulations. A new certification shall be submitted

when an employee is added to or deleted from the program. The

Stationery Room shall make available to the Senate Rules

Committee Audit Section a monthly summary of office

participation in this program. In addition, the Stationery

Room may not refund or replace any damaged, misplaced, lost,

or stolen fare media that has been purchased through the

office's stationery account.

Sec. 7. Certification

The certification required by section 6 shall be approved

by the appointing authority and shall include the name, and

unique identifier of each participating employee within that

office, and the following statements:

(a) Each person included on the list is currently a

qualified employee as defined in Section 3.

(b) No person included on the list has any current Senate

parking privilege and that no parking privileges will be

restored to any person on the list during the period for

which the fare media is purchased.

(c) That each month's fare media for each participating

employee does not exceed the maximum dollar amount specified

in statute.

Sec. 8. Other Participating Programs

Section 6 provides for procedures for participation by

Washington offices in the Metro Pool program established

through Metro by the District of Columbia. Additional

programs in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, or programs

offered in other locations where Members have offices that

meet the requirements of the law and these regulations, may

be used for qualified employees, subject to the following

requirements:

(A) Authorization

The public transit system shall submit information to the

Committee on Rules and Administration that it participates in

an established state or local government program to encourage

the use of public transportation for employees in accordance

with the provisions of Pub. L. 103-172 and these regulations.

If the program meets the requirements of the statute and

these regulations and is approved by the Committee on Rules

and Administration, any Senate office served by such transit

system may provide benefits to its employees pursuant to

these regulations.

(B) Procedures

(1) A qualified program operating in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area that permits purchase arrangements similar

to those provided by the Metro Pool program shall participate

in the Senate program in accordance with the procedures set

forth in Section 6.

(2) A qualified program operating in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area that does not have purchase arrangements

similar to Metro Pool, or a qualified program located outside

that metropolitan area, that permits purchases directly by an

office, may make arrangements for purchase of media directly

with a participating office. Such an office may provide for

direct payment to that system and shall submit the

certification in accordance with Section 7.

(3) In the case of a qualified program that does not permit

purchase arrangements as provided in paragraphs (1) or (2)

above, an office may provide for reimbursement to a qualified

employee and shall submit a certification in accordance with

Section 7.

(C) Documentation

The following documentation must accompany a voucher

submitted under paragraph 8(B)(2) or (3):

(1) A copy of the Rules Committee approval, in accordance

with section 8(A), with the first voucher submitted for that

transit program, provided subsequent vouchers identify the

transit program.

(2) The certification.

(3) Proof of purchase of the fare media.

(D) Voucher Guidance

In the case of a Senator's state office, reimbursement for

payment to either a qualified transit system, or a qualified

employee shall be from the Senators' Official Personnel and

Office Expense Account (SOP&OEA) as a home state office

expense on a seven part voucher. In the Washington, DC

metropolitan area, reimbursement for payment to either a

qualified transit system, or a qualified employee shall be as

follows:

1. In the case of a Senator's office from the SOP&OEA as an

``other official expense'' (discretionary expense).

2. In the case of a Senate committee or administrative

office as an ``Other'' expense.

Sec. 9. Special Circumstances

Any circumstances not covered under these regulations shall

be considered on application to the Committee on Rules and

Administration.

Sec. 10. Effective Date

These regulations shall take effect on the first day of the

month following date of approval.

Mr. President, I offer my personal congratulations to Talmadge E. King, Jr., MD, for receiving the Edward Livingston Trudeau Medal from the American Thoracic Society. The award recognizes Dr. King for his lifelong commitment to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of lung disease.

Throughout his career, Dr. King has made significant contributions to pulmonary medicine in patient care, research, specialty organization, and through his generous philanthropic contributions.

Dr. King began his illustrious career after graduating from Gustavus Adolphus College in 1970 and Harvard Medical School in 1974. Following his graduation from Harvard Medical School, he began his residency at Emory University Affiliated Hospitals in Atlanta, GA. After 2 years of residency at Emory, Dr. King was offered a pulmonary fellowship at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver. Here he also held a professorship in medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

Over the next decade, Dr. King spent time at two other Denver hospitals, the Veterans Administration Medical Center and the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine. In both of these capacities his talents as a doctor and as an administrator were quickly recognized and he rapidly advanced within both organizations.

By 1997, however, he was ready to bring his considerable talents to the Golden State--and we were happy to have him. Dr. King left Denver to take on two new roles in San Francisco, concurrently serving as the vice chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and as the chief of medical services at San Francisco General Hospital. As chief of medical service at San Francisco General Hospital, he leads a department of over 140 full-time physicians and scientists and more than 500 support staff, with an annual budget of over $65 million.

Currently, Dr. King still serves as the chief of medical services at San Francisco General, and since 2005, he has also served as the interim chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. King is also a founding board member of the Foundation of the American Thoracic Society, the philanthropic arm of the American Thoracic Society. In this role, Dr. King has been an exemplary contributor and tireless fundraiser to support domestic and international research to find better treatments for the myriad of lung diseases that afflict individuals around the globe.

Of course, no congratulations would be complete without mentioning the contributions of his wife Mozelle Davis King and his two children Consuelo and Malaika who have been there every step of the way and provided him with steadfast love and support.

Again, I congratulate Dr. King on this great achievement and wish him continued success in the years to come. It is truly a pleasure to honor and thank him for all that he has done for patients across the country.

Mr. President, on April 18, 2007, the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library met and adopted the rules of procedure for the 110th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that pursuant to paragraph 2 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate that the rules of procedure of the Joint Committee of Congress for the Library be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment before us that will split the Ninth Circuit. We will be voting on a point of order at 2 o'clock.

I think it is very unfortunate that the pending bill, to make much- needed improvements in the security of our judges, is being threatened by a rehashing of an old and bad idea to split the circuit. There is a raft of reasons why the Senate should defeat this effort to divide the Ninth Circuit. First, it would be a serious blow to judicial independence if the circuit were to be split because of disagreement with its decisions. It would also result in an unfair distribution of the Ninth Circuit caseload. Judges in the new Ninth Circuit would be much more busy than their counterparts on the Twelfth Circuit. The proposal that is being made by Senator Ensign essentially takes California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Mariana Islands and puts them into their own Ninth Circuit, and takes all the big continental States that are now part of the Ninth Circuit and creates a Twelfth Circuit. That is the proposal that is before the body now.

This proposal would also destroy the current uniformity of the law in the West. It would have significant costs that the judiciary cannot afford to bear, given its already tight budgets, and it is opposed by the vast majority of the people who know the circuit best: its judges. Virtually overwhelmingly I think all but three or four of the judges in the Ninth Circuit oppose its splitting.

I agree with many of the Ninth Circuit's decisions. I disagree with some of them. However, the Framers of the Constitution intended the judiciary to be independent and free from congressional or Presidential pressure or reprisal. I am concerned that recent attempts to split the Ninth Circuit are part of an assault on the independence of the judiciary by those who disagree with some of the court's rulings.

As former Gov. Pete Wilson has stated:

These attempts are judicial ``gerrymandering,'' designed to

isolate and punish judges whose decisions some disagree with.

They are antithetical to the Constitution.

That is not me saying that; that is the former Republican Governor of California.

Attempting to coerce or punish judges or rig the system is not an appropriate response to disagreements with a court's decisions. Rather, it is essential that we preserve our system of checks and balances and make it clear that politicians will not meddle in the work of judges. The configuration of the Ninth Circuit is not set in stone; however, any change to the Ninth Circuit should be guided by concerns of efficiency and administration, not ideology.

After a substantial review of the statistics, decisions, and reports from those who know the circuit best, it is clear that splitting the Ninth Circuit would hinder its mission of providing justice for the people of the West.

The split proposal before us would unfairly distribute judicial resources to the West. This is the key. The Ninth Circuit would keep 71 percent of the caseload of the current circuit but only 58 percent of its permanent judges. Any split we look at, because California is so big, tilts the circuit and, of course, all of the proponents of the circuit split take the judges with them. So it leaves a disproportionate share of a heavy caseload in the Ninth Circuit--unless you split California, and to split California creates a host of technical and legal problems.

Last year, the Ninth Circuit had a caseload of 570 cases per judge, as opposed to a national average of 381 cases per judge. So under the proposed split, the Ensign plan, the average caseload in the new Ninth Circuit would actually increase to 600 cases per judge, while the new Twelfth Circuit would have half that, 326 cases per judge. There is no effort to give the Ninth the new judges they would need to keep the caseload even. This inequitable division of resources would leave residents of California and Hawaii facing greater delays and with court services inferior to their Twelfth Circuit neighbors.

The uniformity of law in the West is a key advantage of the Ninth Circuit, offering consistency to States that share many common concerns. The size of the Ninth Circuit is an asset, offering a unified legal approach to issues from immigration to the environment. Dividing the circuit would make solving these problems even more difficult. For example, splitting the circuit could result in different interpretations in California and Arizona of laws that govern immigration, different applications of environmental regulations on the California and Nevada sides of Lake Tahoe, and different intellectual property law in Silicon Valley and the Seattle technology corridor. These differences would have real economic costs. These are border States, and trade and commerce in the Pacific is a huge part of what they do. Therefore, the legal consistency between them is an asset, not a disadvantage.

In a time of tight judicial budgets, splitting the circuit would add significant and unnecessary expense. The split actually would require additional Federal funds to duplicate the current staff of the Ninth Circuit and a new or expanded courthouse and an administrative building since existing judicial facilities for a Twelfth Circuit are inadequate. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts estimated that creating a Twelfth Circuit would have a startup cost of $96 million, with another $16 million in annual recurring cost.

If we are going to do anything, what we need is more judges on the Ninth Circuit. That is the key. With budget pressures already forcing our Federal courts to cut staff and curtail services, this is no time to impose new, unnecessary costs on the judiciary.

My colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, joins me in these remarks. She will have a separate statement.

Those who know the Ninth Circuit best overwhelming oppose the split. Of the active Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, 18 oppose the split, to be exact, and only 3 support it. The district court and bankruptcy judges of the Ninth Circuit also oppose the split. Every State bar association that has weighed in on the split--Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington--opposes breaking up the Ninth Circuit, and more than 100 different national, regional, and local organizations have written to urge that the Ninth Circuit be kept intact.

I believe splitting the Ninth Circuit would create more problems right now than it would solve. It will not solve the caseload problem of the circuit, and that is the critical issue. Those who propose the split do so to unfairly benefit themselves because they also take the judges from the Ninth Circuit and they add them to the Twelfth Circuit. They would end up having a caseload per judge of one-half of what the caseload would be in a new Ninth Circuit. So it is not a fair plan because it does not fairly distribute the resources based on caseload. I believe there is only one criterion for resources, and that is caseload. The judges must be where the cases are, and that should be an inescapable truth that we follow.

I urge the Senate to vote to sustain the point of order on the Ensign amendment to split the Ninth Circuit, and instead let's focus our attention on securing the courts and then, secondly, providing the judges who are necessary to equalize caseloads throughout the Nation.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004; that at 2 p.m. today, a vote occur on Senator Ensign's motion to waive the point of order, considered made by this agreement, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided and controlled between Senators Feinstein and Ensign or their designees; that if the motion to waive the Budget Act is not successful, then without further intervening action or debate, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote

on passage of the bill; that if the motion to waive the Budget Act is successful, the provision on third reading and passage be vitiated.

I ask that the preceding be done by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, this morning, I heard my friend and colleague, Senator Brownback, on the floor speaking about the decision of the Supreme Court. He and I both chair the Senate's Cancer Coalition, so it has been a great pleasure for me to work with him. But we have very different views when it comes to a woman's right to choose, and I would like to rise today to express my concern and deep dismay regarding the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

This judgment today is a major strike against a woman's right to choose. The Court, in this case, by a narrow 5-to-4 margin, has essentially enacted the first Federal abortion ban in this country and has struck down a primary requirement of Roe v. Wade--protection of the health of a mother.

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote:

Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and

Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, Federal

intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary

and proper in certain cases by the American College of

Obstetrics and Gynecologists. It blurs the line firmly drawn

in Casey between pre-viability and post- viability abortions.

And for the first time since Roe, the court blesses a

prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

This is simply shocking. It is shocking because this can affect any second-trimester abortion.

Just 7 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down this very ban in Stenberg v. Carhart in the year 2000. It struck it down out of concern that it did not provide adequate protections for a woman's health and that the law enacted was too vague. The Federal courts, the Fifth and the Ninth Circuits, have all examined this and opposed it. No Federal Court has upheld this abortion ban until today.

Now, what has changed in the 7 years? The answer is nothing, except the composition of the Court. The additions of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have accomplished what the Bush administration has sought from its earliest days--a court willing to further restrict a woman's right to choose.

When they appeared before the Judiciary Committee during their confirmation hearings, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito affirmed their respect for stare decisis as preeminent and a controlling factor. In these hearings, Chief Justice Roberts said, and I quote:

People expect that the law is going to be what the court

has told them the law is going to be. And that's an important

consideration.

Justice Alito said, and I quote:

I've agreed, I think numerous times during these hearings,

that when a decision is reaffirmed, that strengthens its

value as stare decisis.

With Justice O'Connor no longer on the Court, the majority of Justices ignored what Senator Specter referred to as ``super precedent'' in these hearings.

As Justice Ginsburg points out:

The Court admits that ``moral concerns'' are at work,

concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortions.

She continues:

Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an

autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety. This

way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place

in the family and under the Constitution--ideas that have

long since been discredited.

The Court, now filled with Bush appointees, is replacing the judicial precedent that they promised to respect for their definition of morality. That is where I see us as being today. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has substituted the medical decisions of politicians for that of doctors.

In the Congressional findings of the legislation creating this ban, as well as the majority opinion of the Court, politicians and Justices decided what procedures are medically necessary and which are not. Justice Kennedy wrote, in today's majority decision, that the Court assumed the abortion ban would ``be unconstitutional if it subjected women to significant health risks.'' He goes on to declare ``safe medical options are available.''

However, doctors who perform these procedures disagree. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the group that represents more than 90 percent of all OB/GYN specialists in the country, assembled an expert panel that identified several specific instances in which this procedure, intact dilation and extraction, has meaningful safety advantages over other medical options.

The procedure is safer for women with serious underlying medical conditions, including liver disease, bleeding and clotting disorders, and compromised immune systems.

Experts also testified that this procedure is significantly safer for women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, including severe hydrocephalus. That is when the head fills with water and is very often larger than the body. In these rare and heartbreaking cases in which a woman learns that something has gone tragically wrong in a pregnancy she very much wanted, no woman should be forced to bear the added burden of undergoing a medical procedure that is not the safest option.

The decision today unquestionably breaks new ground. I am extremely concerned that this has opened the door to a further judicial interference in what should be private medical decisions made by women, their partners, their religious beliefs, and their doctors. With this decision, the Roberts Court is signaling a new willingness to uphold additional restrictions on abortion, even those that do not expressly protect a woman's health. This is dangerous.

The Roberts Court has also opened the door for a major change in how it will determine whether a law unconstitutionally restricts a woman's rights. Generally, laws have been struck down when they are unconstitutional on their face, because if a law is unconstitutional for 10 people or 10 million people, then it should not stand. The Court is turning that analysis on its head. The Court's opinion today says it may uphold laws, even when they may be unconstitutional.

This means that in the future a woman could be put in an untenable situation. A woman facing a health crisis needs to act within days or weeks but instead would need to depend on the legal system. Let me give you an example.

A woman learns her pregnancy has gone tragically wrong and her health is at risk. She is told by the doctor that there exists a medical procedure that would help her, but it is banned. The alternatives will risk her health.

She has to go to court and argue that her constitutional rights, in this specific instance, have been violated.

We all know the wheels of justice spin slowly. It is doubtful the system could respond in a timely manner to a woman in this kind of crisis. If she can prove her case, she might be allowed to have the procedure, but the ban itself would still remain in place, requiring the next woman in a similar situation to have to successfully demonstrate that the law is unconstitutional. This is amazing. The Court, in effect, is requiring that women's health be at risk until it deems enough women have demonstrated the negative impact of the law on them. Requiring this type of legal challenge to any restriction on abortion will impact women in the most vulnerable situations.

I would like, for a moment, to quote Justice Ginsburg. She points out:

Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, ``are no

longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the

individual, or the Constitution.'' . . . Women, it is now

acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ``to

participate equally in the social life of this Nation.''

In this, incidentally, she is quoting Sandra Day O'Connor in places in an earlier decision.

Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court

recognized, is intimately connected to ``their ability to

control their reproductive lives.'' . . . Thus, legal

challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do

not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy;

rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her

life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

In keeping with this comprehension of the right to

reproductive choice, the Court has consistently required that

laws regulating abortion, at any stage of pregnancy and in

all cases, safeguard a woman's health.

This is now out the window. It is monumental.

In conclusion, I remember what it was like when abortion was illegal in America. It was when I was a college student at Stanford. I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so young women could go to Tijuana for an abortion. I knew a woman who ended her life because she was pregnant. In the 1960s, while abortion was still illegal, as a member of the California Board of Terms and Parole, I sentenced women convicted of illegally performing abortions. I saw the morbidity that they caused by their procedures. It was barbaric in those days. So I am very concerned with this ruling.

The Court is taking the first major step back to these days of 30, 40 years ago. Young women today have not had these experiences. They have lived only in an era in which the Court recognized their autonomy, their right to make their own medical decisions. If I were a young woman today, I would be incredibly concerned that this era is drawing to a close. The threat on reproductive freedom is no longer theoretical. Today it is very real. All those who care about protecting a woman's right to privacy should take notice and make their voices heard.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold and I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as chairman of the Rules Committee to speak about a bill that the Committee heard and passed out unanimously a short time ago. That bill is entitled the ``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.'' It is sponsored by Senators Feingold, Cochran, and 32 other Senators. It would require that Senate campaign finance reports be filed electronically rather than in paper format. That is all the bill does.

Currently, House candidates, Presidential candidates, political action committees, and party committees are all required to file electronically, and they do. But Senators, Senate candidates, authorized campaign committees, and the Democratic and Republican Senate campaign committees are exempt. As a result, we have a very cumbersome system in which paper copies of disclosure reports are filed with the Senate Office of Public Records, which then scans them, makes an electronic copy of them, and sends that copy to the FEC on a dedicated communications line. The FEC then prints the report and sends it to a vendor in Fredericksburg, VA, where the information is keyed in by hand and transferred back to the FEC database. All of this costs about $250,000, and it is a waste of money, a waste of staff, and a waste of time.

At our hearing on February 14 on this bill--and this bill is just on this point--it was clear that there was no public opposition to this proposal, only public support. The bill has been hotlined. It has cleared on the Democratic side. It has not cleared on the Republican side.

Now, again, this bill says we will just allow us to electronically file our quarterly reports. I just electronically filed my quarterly reports. I then gave a paper copy to the Secretary of the Senate. This is exactly the type of good-government law the Senate can adopt as a stand-alone measure.

I hope we move this legislation today, without burdening it with other items. It is really long past time to bring the Senate into the modern era. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in ensuring timely access and disclosure of Senate finance campaign activities and bring that information before the public.

I will now yield to the author of the legislation, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, if I may, I will ask a question of the Senator from Wisconsin. First, I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

If I can ask the Senator, is there any item in this bill other than electronic filing?

Doesn't this bill simply enable Members of the Senate, just as every other political office does, to file directly electronically their finance reports?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, this is such a simple, direct bill with respect to transparency. It is an idea whose time has long come. It happens everywhere else except for the Senate, Senate committees, and the Senate campaign committees. The time is long overdue to pass this bill. It is such a simple, good-government issue. It is very hard for me to understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it could be. I hope that if there is opposition in this Senate, the Member would be willing to come down to the floor and express why they would oppose this bill.

We have the solid support of the entire Rules Committee. This bill was easy to pass out of committee. It was easy to hotline on the Democratic side, and it should be easy to pass by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 96, S. 223, a bill to require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports in electronic forms; that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood

Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senator Boxer is a cosponsor of this bill.

This bill seeks to remove roadblocks to the implementation of 1988 legislation that requires the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. Enactment of this bill is necessary so that Redwood Valley can obtain a reliable water supply.

In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project which supplied water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, CA. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million contributed to the financing of this project.

Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The projected water use in the original feasibility study, developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau, was seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise necessary revenues was compromised by a judicially imposed moratorium on new hook-ups; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's potential water supply allotment by 33 percent.

As a result, in 1988 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 which indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the loans. This loan renegotiation has yet to take place and now the District finds that its water supply is highly uncertain.

In 2000 in a report on Redwood Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation recognized these changed conditions, and concluded that the District needs a reliable water supply before it can solve its current financial dilemma.

The District recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could prove a reliable water source. No government funds will be sought for these projects. The District intends to rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau of Reclamation is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to the repayment of the new loans.

The existing loans are an impediment to the District's attempts to upgrade elements of its existing plant. As an example, the District unsuccessfully sought private financing to build a 100 kW solar panel project. This project would have enabled the District to cut its energy costs and to qualify for energy rebates.

Significantly, this legislation requires the District to repay to the United States the currently suspended loans once the District's new loans have been paid.

The only difference between this bill and S. 3189, which I introduced last year, is to clarify that no renegotiations are required to trigger the District's obligations to repay the loans and the Secretary of Interior ``shall reschedule the payments due'' once the District has satisfied its additional financial obligations.

The proposed water projects will enable the District to generate adequate revenues to allow the District to repay both its new private loans and its original loans from the United States. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, this legislation creates a win-win solution for taxpayers of the United States and the rate payers of the Redwood Valley County Water District.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation from the last Congress that would bring all electronic surveillance of terrorists under the color of law and would modernize the rules for conducting such surveillance. I am pleased that Senator Specter, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, has co- sponsored this legislation.

We all agree that the President and the Intelligence Community should have all the tools they need to find the terrorists before they have a chance to strike us again. This cannot be said too many times in too many ways.

We also agree, though, that these intelligence tools can and should be used in a way that protects the constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans. That is the balance that this legislation attempts to strike.

Nowhere is this more at issue than in electronic surveillance, where government officials record the content of Americans' phone and electronic communications. This important means of obtaining critical counterterrorism information is at the same time a significant, constitutionally recognized intrusion into Americans' privacy rights.

It is worth reminding ourselves of this. We have recently focused on the use of National Security Letters, through which the FBI inappropriately obtained telephone records of at least hundreds of Americans. Electronic surveillance goes far beyond records and collects the actual content--the words spoken over the phone or typed in email.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of why this legislation is necessary, as it has been several months before this was the top legislative issue before the Senate.

For more than five years since September 11, 2001, the National Security Agency collected the content of calls from or to United States persons--citizens and permanent residents--without a court order as is required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

This surveillance was done without notifying and seeking authorization from the congressional intelligence committees. The President and Vice President have very closely restricted disclosure of information about what they call the ``Terrorist Surveillance Program.''

Until this surveillance came to light through an article in The New York Times in December 2005, only eight members of Congress were briefed on it. Even after the article came out, the White House refused to brief the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees for several months.

Even now, the Intelligence Committee does not have all the information it needs to carry out its Constitutional oversight duties.

Throughout 2006, the Judiciary Committee debated various bills to authorize or prohibit electronic surveillance outside of FISA. The bill that Senator Specter and I authored last year, which is being re- introduced today, was reported out of Judiciary on a bipartisan vote on September 13, 2006. The Senate, however, took no legislative action prior to adjournment.

Then, on January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales notified the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FISA Court had authorized the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Since January, the program has proceeded

under Court supervision, as is required by FISA.

I was pleased that the Administration submitted the TSP to the FISA Court, and that the Court had found a way to issue an order approving this surveillance. I was pleased, but not surprised.

I had maintained throughout the legislative debate last year that it would not take many changes for the TSP to fit under the confines of FISA. All it took was the willingness of the Administration to follow legal process.

Members may ask, given the recent developments, why legislation is now necessary. There are two reasons.

The first is that the Senate should enact this bill is because this Administration has never conceded the point that it cannot conduct electronic surveillance outside of the law. It has put the TSP under FISA Court review, but it asserts that it has the right not to do so. Future Administrations, if not enjoined, may take the same view.

I disagree with this legal analysis.

Secondly, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the FBI, and the Attorney General have said on many occasions that FISA is outdated and in need of modernization. The current FISA process is too bureaucratic, too slow to initiate electronic surveillance from the time a suspected terrorist's phone or email account is identified.

This bill addresses those concerns by providing new flexibility and additional resources to speed the FISA process and allow for the more timely collection of valuable intelligence.

Allow me to summarize the legislation. The bill: re-iterates that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.

Specifies that FISA's requirements cannot be written off through contorted interpretations of other statutes. The Administration's tortured argument with respect to the Authorization for the 2001 Use of Military Force (AUMF) notwithstanding, this legislation would specify that FISA's language can only be undone by a specific and direct Act of Congress.

Requires that Congress, through the Intelligence Committees, be fully briefed on the Terrorist Surveillance Program and any related surveillance programs.

Requires the Supreme Court to review, on an expedited basis, the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Streamlines the current ``emergency procedures'' in FISA. Currently, the Attorney General can authorize surveillance prior to a Court order for 72 hours in an emergency. This legislation would extend the time to one week, which should remove any doubt as to whether Court approval can be sought and obtained in time. The bill also allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to initiate electronic surveillance in an emergency to specific supervisory officials at the NSA and FBI.

Authorizes additional personnel to expedite the writing, submission, and review of FISA applications. Specifically, additional FISA Court judges and staff are authorized, as are additional positions at the Department of Justice, FBI, and NSA.

Extends the existing FISA authority--for 15 days of warrantless surveillance following a declaration of war--to any 30-day period following an authorization for the use of military force or a national emergency following a terrorist attack.

Allows the National Security Agency to take full advantage of its capabilities to collect intelligence on foreign communications.

While foreign-to-foreign communications are not covered now by FISA's requirements, the NSA can only conduct surveillance on these calls if it can be sure, in advance, that a telephone call of email won't transit the United States or unexpectedly end here. In the age of cell phones and the global telecommunications system, this a priori certification is very difficult to make. This legislation therefore specifies that in such inadvertent collection cases, the NSA must minimize the data, but that it has not violated the law.

Finally, the legislation clarifies that FISA court orders for electronic surveillance must be individualized to a particular target that the government has probable cause to believe is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

From the briefings I have received as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the hearings held in Judiciary, I am convinced that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an important anti-terrorism tool that should be continued.

It is also clear from the January FISA Court ruling that the Terrorist Surveillance Program can be conducted within the confines of FISA. It is appropriate now for Congress to re-iterate that this is the appropriate arrangement.

This is by no means an issue that has been overtaken by events. The Administration continues to support a view of plenary authority in which it can conduct electronic surveillance in violation of FISA. The NSA and the FBI continue to labor under a process that was formed 29 years ago, prior to fundamental changes in the telecommunications system.

I urge the Senate to act to ensure that the law is followed and privacy rights upheld, and to provide the Intelligence Community the tools it needs to continue to make us safe.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood

Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senator Boxer is a cosponsor of this bill.

This bill seeks to remove roadblocks to the implementation of 1988 legislation that requires the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. Enactment of this bill is necessary so that Redwood Valley can obtain a reliable water supply.

In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project which supplied water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, CA. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million contributed to the financing of this project.

Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The projected water use in the original feasibility study, developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau, was seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise necessary revenues was compromised by a judicially imposed moratorium on new hook-ups; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's potential water supply allotment by 33 percent.

As a result, in 1988 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 which indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the loans. This loan renegotiation has yet to take place and now the District finds that its water supply is highly uncertain.

In 2000 in a report on Redwood Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation recognized these changed conditions, and concluded that the District needs a reliable water supply before it can solve its current financial dilemma.

The District recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could prove a reliable water source. No government funds will be sought for these projects. The District intends to rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau of Reclamation is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to the repayment of the new loans.

The existing loans are an impediment to the District's attempts to upgrade elements of its existing plant. As an example, the District unsuccessfully sought private financing to build a 100 kW solar panel project. This project would have enabled the District to cut its energy costs and to qualify for energy rebates.

Significantly, this legislation requires the District to repay to the United States the currently suspended loans once the District's new loans have been paid.

The only difference between this bill and S. 3189, which I introduced last year, is to clarify that no renegotiations are required to trigger the District's obligations to repay the loans and the Secretary of Interior ``shall reschedule the payments due'' once the District has satisfied its additional financial obligations.

The proposed water projects will enable the District to generate adequate revenues to allow the District to repay both its new private loans and its original loans from the United States. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, this legislation creates a win-win solution for taxpayers of the United States and the rate payers of the Redwood Valley County Water District.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation from the last Congress that would bring all electronic surveillance of terrorists under the color of law and would modernize the rules for conducting such surveillance. I am pleased that Senator Specter, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, has co- sponsored this legislation.

We all agree that the President and the Intelligence Community should have all the tools they need to find the terrorists before they have a chance to strike us again. This cannot be said too many times in too many ways.

We also agree, though, that these intelligence tools can and should be used in a way that protects the constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans. That is the balance that this legislation attempts to strike.

Nowhere is this more at issue than in electronic surveillance, where government officials record the content of Americans' phone and electronic communications. This important means of obtaining critical counterterrorism information is at the same time a significant, constitutionally recognized intrusion into Americans' privacy rights.

It is worth reminding ourselves of this. We have recently focused on the use of National Security Letters, through which the FBI inappropriately obtained telephone records of at least hundreds of Americans. Electronic surveillance goes far beyond records and collects the actual content--the words spoken over the phone or typed in email.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of why this legislation is necessary, as it has been several months before this was the top legislative issue before the Senate.

For more than five years since September 11, 2001, the National Security Agency collected the content of calls from or to United States persons--citizens and permanent residents--without a court order as is required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

This surveillance was done without notifying and seeking authorization from the congressional intelligence committees. The President and Vice President have very closely restricted disclosure of information about what they call the ``Terrorist Surveillance Program.''

Until this surveillance came to light through an article in The New York Times in December 2005, only eight members of Congress were briefed on it. Even after the article came out, the White House refused to brief the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees for several months.

Even now, the Intelligence Committee does not have all the information it needs to carry out its Constitutional oversight duties.

Throughout 2006, the Judiciary Committee debated various bills to authorize or prohibit electronic surveillance outside of FISA. The bill that Senator Specter and I authored last year, which is being re- introduced today, was reported out of Judiciary on a bipartisan vote on September 13, 2006. The Senate, however, took no legislative action prior to adjournment.

Then, on January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales notified the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FISA Court had authorized the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Since January, the program has proceeded

under Court supervision, as is required by FISA.

I was pleased that the Administration submitted the TSP to the FISA Court, and that the Court had found a way to issue an order approving this surveillance. I was pleased, but not surprised.

I had maintained throughout the legislative debate last year that it would not take many changes for the TSP to fit under the confines of FISA. All it took was the willingness of the Administration to follow legal process.

Members may ask, given the recent developments, why legislation is now necessary. There are two reasons.

The first is that the Senate should enact this bill is because this Administration has never conceded the point that it cannot conduct electronic surveillance outside of the law. It has put the TSP under FISA Court review, but it asserts that it has the right not to do so. Future Administrations, if not enjoined, may take the same view.

I disagree with this legal analysis.

Secondly, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the FBI, and the Attorney General have said on many occasions that FISA is outdated and in need of modernization. The current FISA process is too bureaucratic, too slow to initiate electronic surveillance from the time a suspected terrorist's phone or email account is identified.

This bill addresses those concerns by providing new flexibility and additional resources to speed the FISA process and allow for the more timely collection of valuable intelligence.

Allow me to summarize the legislation. The bill: re-iterates that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.

Specifies that FISA's requirements cannot be written off through contorted interpretations of other statutes. The Administration's tortured argument with respect to the Authorization for the 2001 Use of Military Force (AUMF) notwithstanding, this legislation would specify that FISA's language can only be undone by a specific and direct Act of Congress.

Requires that Congress, through the Intelligence Committees, be fully briefed on the Terrorist Surveillance Program and any related surveillance programs.

Requires the Supreme Court to review, on an expedited basis, the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Streamlines the current ``emergency procedures'' in FISA. Currently, the Attorney General can authorize surveillance prior to a Court order for 72 hours in an emergency. This legislation would extend the time to one week, which should remove any doubt as to whether Court approval can be sought and obtained in time. The bill also allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to initiate electronic surveillance in an emergency to specific supervisory officials at the NSA and FBI.

Authorizes additional personnel to expedite the writing, submission, and review of FISA applications. Specifically, additional FISA Court judges and staff are authorized, as are additional positions at the Department of Justice, FBI, and NSA.

Extends the existing FISA authority--for 15 days of warrantless surveillance following a declaration of war--to any 30-day period following an authorization for the use of military force or a national emergency following a terrorist attack.

Allows the National Security Agency to take full advantage of its capabilities to collect intelligence on foreign communications.

While foreign-to-foreign communications are not covered now by FISA's requirements, the NSA can only conduct surveillance on these calls if it can be sure, in advance, that a telephone call of email won't transit the United States or unexpectedly end here. In the age of cell phones and the global telecommunications system, this a priori certification is very difficult to make. This legislation therefore specifies that in such inadvertent collection cases, the NSA must minimize the data, but that it has not violated the law.

Finally, the legislation clarifies that FISA court orders for electronic surveillance must be individualized to a particular target that the government has probable cause to believe is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

From the briefings I have received as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the hearings held in Judiciary, I am convinced that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an important anti-terrorism tool that should be continued.

It is also clear from the January FISA Court ruling that the Terrorist Surveillance Program can be conducted within the confines of FISA. It is appropriate now for Congress to re-iterate that this is the appropriate arrangement.

This is by no means an issue that has been overtaken by events. The Administration continues to support a view of plenary authority in which it can conduct electronic surveillance in violation of FISA. The NSA and the FBI continue to labor under a process that was formed 29 years ago, prior to fundamental changes in the telecommunications system.

I urge the Senate to act to ensure that the law is followed and privacy rights upheld, and to provide the Intelligence Community the tools it needs to continue to make us safe.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on Repealing Limitation on Party Expenditures on Behalf of Candidates in General Elections.

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

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library will meet on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 2:15 p.m., in S-115 to conduct its organization meeting for the 110th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act, S. 30.

My objection to this bill is simple. This legislation will do nothing to overturn President Bush's failed policy that is restricting access to viable stem cell lines.

The United States Senate must be very careful when incorporating scientific concepts, and scientific definitions, into legislation. This bill relies on the notion of so-called ``naturally dead'' embryos to provide viable stem cells. It defines these embryos as:

having naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for

integrated cellular division, growth, and differentiation

that is characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of

the former organism may be alive in a disorganized state.

We do not know what the implications of this definition may ultimately be. And the fact is, neither do many scientists. As the leadership of The American Society for Cell Biology wrote yesterday,

Naturally dead is a scientifically meaningless idea. To our

knowledge, there is no scientifically credible way to

determine this.

They continue:

It is critically important that the Senate proceed with

caution as it continues its work in the area of scientific

policy. Legislation based on inaccurate science could have a

detrimental impact on the course of the American biomedical

research enterprise.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

I could not agree more. This debate should be about providing Federal funding, and a consistent policy, for embryonic stem cell research. It is not the place of the U.S. Senate to rely on concepts and definitions that are ``scientifically meaningless.''

The truly important vote will occur on the passage of S. 5, the only legislation that will reverse what the majority of Americans, and the majority of the medical and scientific community believe to be a flawed policy.

S. 30 will very clearly leave in place President Bush's August 9, 2001 Executive Order, which limits Federal funding to stem lines derived before that date. We need to overturn this policy, not affirm it.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing S. 30.

Exhibit 1

The American Society for

Cell Biology,

Bethesda, MD, April 10, 2007.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC

Dear Senator Reid: We would like to express our views about

the upcoming Senate debate on stem cell research, as the

President and Public Policy Committee Chair respectively for

the American Society for Cell Biology. Our nonprofit,

professional society of more than 11,000 members includes

many of the leading scientists working in this area.

As you know, it is critically important that science policy

be carefully crafted to allow ethically sound scientific

research to proceed. This is particularly difficult to do

when the science behind the policy is as complicated as in

the current policy debate on stem cell research.

We are particularly concerned about a major provision of

S.30, the ``Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem

Cell Research Act.'' The expressed purpose of S.30 is to

``promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines

without the creation of human embryos for research purposes

and without the destruction, discarding of, or risk of injury

to a human embryo or embryos other than those that are

naturally dead.''

S.30 relies on the false premise that scientists can

determine whether a human embryo is ``naturally dead.''

However, naturally dead is a scientifically meaningless idea.

To our knowledge, there is no scientifically credible way to

determine this. In fact, we think that to establish

sufficiently precise scientific or clinical standards about

the quality of embryos at the very early stages of

development would require experiments that the bill itself

would not permit.

It is critically important that the Senate proceed with

caution as it continues its work in the area of science

policy. Legislation based on inaccurate science could have a

detrimental impact on the course of the American biomedical

research enterprise. Not only do we risk driving research and

researchers to other countries more interested in cutting

edge research but we also delay the day when our fellow

Americans who suffer from some of the most debilitating

diseases finally realize the benefits of scientific

research.

Sincerely,

Bruce Alberts,

President.

Larry Goldstein,

Chair, Public Policy Committee.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 20 minutes. Is that correct?

I see. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 that is known as S. 5. It is really the only bill of the two that will allow scientists to fully pursue the promise of stem cell research.

I want to particularly thank Senators Harkin and Specter, Kennedy and Hatch, who have been in the leadership of this issue for the past several Congresses. I also want to point out, in the case of the distinguished Senator from Utah, he is very pro-life. I have listened to him over these many years. I have listened to the real wisdom he has espoused on this issue. I hope more people will pay attention to him because I think he is right with respect to this issue.

On August 9, 2001--that is 6 years ago--President Bush limited Federal research funding to 78 stem cell lines already in existence. Nearly 6 years have passed, and in that time two things have happened. First, most of these 78 stem cell lines are no longer available for scientific work. Many lines developed abnormalities and mutations as they aged. Only 21 lines are available today. These lines are all contaminated with mouse feeder cells and therefore are useless for research in humans. They do not have the diverse genetic makeup that is necessary to find cures that benefit all Americans, and researchers cannot use them to examine rare and deadly genetic diseases.

This was, in fact, the President's policy. It is now clearly established that policy does not work, that policy is moribund. Yet the President will not relent and Federal research on stem cells cannot go forward.

Secondly, public support for stem cell research--full-blown stem cell research--has grown. Sixty-one percent of Americans responding to a poll in January of this year support embryonic stem cell research. This is also a bipartisan issue. Fifty-four percent of Republicans in an ABC News poll also support embryonic stem cell research.

The majority of the American public support this bill. We know the current policy is handcuffing our scientists and is not allowing this research to move forward. So the solution is obvious. We should pass this bill.

I think the time has come for the President to come to this realization, and it is my hope he will see he has been mistaken.

The bill we are debating today offers a compromise. This bill will not destroy any embryo that would not otherwise be destroyed or discarded. It will allow promising research to move forward. It would end the impasse. It would take off the handcuffs.

President Bush had the opportunity to take a step forward 9 months ago when the House and Senate sent him the Castle-DeGette bill, on which this bill is based. He made it the first and, so far, only veto of his Presidency. My colleagues and I made a commitment that we would raise this issue again and again--as long as it takes. Today we are fulfilling that promise. We know this bill will one day become law--if not this year, then next year; if not next year, then the following year.

The majority of the American people, the majority of the scientific community, other nations, many of our States have embraced the promise of stem cell research. The President can stand in the way of such an overwhelming consensus for only so long.

With every passing week, the inevitability of this legislation grows clearer. Just since the President's veto, officials from his own administration have acknowledged the shortcomings of the current policy. More research has demonstrated the unique promise of pluripotent, multipurpose stem cells. States and private institutions are forging ahead without Federal support.

Finally, and importantly, more Americans are waiting for cures and treatments for catastrophic diseases. This is a very large lobby indeed.

So today we have another opportunity to move hope forward. The two bills before us today present a very stark choice. Only one bill, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, embraces all forms of stem cell research. This legislation provides a simple and straightforward way to provide American scientists and researchers with immediate access to the most promising stem cell lines.

It states that embryos to be discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics may be used in federally funded stem cell research, no matter when they were created.

While opponents have suggested this bill will lead us down a slippery slope, the parameters created by the bill are numerous and, in fact, strict. Let me give you some examples.

The embryos must be left over following fertility treatment. The people donating the embryos must provide written consent. The donors may not be compensated for their donation. Finally, it must be clear that the embryos would otherwise be discarded.

This legislation will not allow Federal funding to be used to destroy embryos. With restrictions in place, over 400,000 embryos could become available while ensuring that researchers meet the highest of ethical standards.

Let's be clear. We are talking about embryos that will be destroyed whether or not this bill becomes law. It is an indisputable fact, and everyone would agree these embryos have no future. When President Bush adopted his ill-fated policy in 2001, he allowed lines already in existence to be used for federally funded research because ``the life- or-death decision'' had already been made.

The same is true here. In terms of the basic ideology of the President's earlier policy, this bill is no different than the earlier policy because the life-or-death decision has already been made with respect to these particular embryos. These will never be implanted. They will never be adopted. They will never be used.

This bill has not been held up because it is flawed. There is nothing wrong with this bill. The bill has been held up because of ideology, not policy.

There is a clear scientific consensus on this issue. Embryonic stem cell research has been endorsed by 525 organizations and 80 Nobel prize laureates. These groups and these experts represent the entire panoply of American health care, the young and the old: the American Association of Retired Persons, which we know as AARP; the Society of Pediatric Research; the American Geriatrics Society. They represent a wide range of medical experts. The American Medical Association supports this bill. The American Academy of Nursing supports this bill.

They are from varying regions in the country: the University of California

system, the University of Kansas, the University of Arizona, the University of Chicago, and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.

They represent patients struggling with a wide variety of afflictions: the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Lung Cancer Alliance, the Arthritis Association, the ALS Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

They represent a variety of religious faiths, including the Episcopal Church and the National Council of Jewish Women.

These groups represent a variety of patients, medical disciplines, and religious faiths. They are from all over this country, and they all support expanding stem cell research. This consensus now even includes Bush administration officials. Last month, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni testified this:

From my standpoint as NIH director, it is in the best

interest of our scientists, our science, and our country that

we find ways and the Nation finds a way to go full-speed

across adult and embryonic stem cells equally.

That is a pretty unambiguous statement from the man who heads the Institutes of Health.

The Senate and the President should listen to the scientists who best understand this issue and give them access to the stem cell lines that successful research demands.

Jennifer McCormick of Stanford University's Center for Biomedical Ethics has said:

The United States is falling behind in the international

race to make fundamental discoveries in related fields.

It is time to address and reverse that sentiment.

In a letter to President Bush, Nobel laureates called the discoveries made thus far by stem cell researchers a significant milestone in medical research.

They go on to say that:

Federal support for the enormous creativity of the United

States biomedical community is essential to translate this

discovery into novel therapies for a range of serious and

currently intractable diseases.

They are not alone. Paul Berg of Stanford, George Daley of Harvard, and Laurence S.B. Goldstein of the University of California at San Diego recognize the promise and the need for embryonic stem cell research. These esteemed researchers have said:

We want to be very clear. The most successful demonstrated

method for creating the most versatile type of stem cells

capable of becoming many types of mature human cells is to

derive them from human embryos.

This is the science.

You can quote a scientist here or a scientist there who will differ with that, but the bulk of people in this field worldwide believe as this statement reflects.

As Lucian V. Del Priore of Columbia University said:

This is important and exciting work.

It is time we use the wisdom of these respected scientists and embrace the promise of biomedical research using embryonic stem cells.

Scientists have learned more about stem cells--how they work, how they may one day be used for cures--since we last considered this issue, I guess some 10 months ago. This past August, scientists from the University of Edinburgh used embryonic stem cells from an African clawed frog to identify a protein that is critical to the development of liver cells and insulin-producing beta cells. This could lead to a better understanding of diabetes and liver disease as well as new treatments.

Then during the next month or two, in October, scientists at Novocell, a San Diego biotech company, announced the development of a process to turn human embryonic stem cells into pancreatic cells that produce insulin. This could be another significant step toward using stem cells to treat diabetes.

In September last, researchers used human embryonic stem cells to slow vision loss in rats suffering from a genetic eye disease that is similar to macular degeneration in humans. Macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in people aged 55 and over in the world. It affects more than 15 million Americans. This research means stem cells could one day be used to restore vision in many of these patients. Just think of that: fifteen million people who are surely going to go blind, and that blindness might be stopped.

In March, a team at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, CA used embryonic stem cells in mice to treat a rare degenerative disorder called Sandhoff's disease. This condition, which is similar to Tay- Sachs disease, destroys brain cells. The mice treated with stem cells enjoyed a 70-percent longer lifespan, and the onset of their symptoms was delayed. The stem cells migrated throughout the brains of the mice and they replaced damaged nerve cells. No one ever thought that could be done before. This suggests that embryonic stem cells may effectively treat this disease as well as other genetic neurological conditions, including Tay-Sachs.

So all of this work is just beginning. Scientists will now work to translate these promising advances into cures for humans, and such a feat will almost certainly require access to viable lines of human stem cells. Unless the President's policy is overturned, these lines will not be available, and without access to additional stem cell lines, the cures and treatments will never move from mice to humans.

Many States, frustrated with Federal gridlock and the loss of their best scientific minds, are moving forward. I am particularly proud of my State of California. In 2004, California voters, by a whopping margin, approved Proposition 71 and created the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. That institute is spending $3 billion over 10 years supporting promising research conducted in California. This work will be done with careful ethical oversight. It also bans human reproductive cloning, something we can all agree is immoral and unethical. Over $158 million in research grants has now been approved, making California the largest source of funding for embryonic stem cell research in America.

Promising projects include creating liver cells for transplantation at the University of California at Davis, developing cellular models for Parkinson's disease and Lou Gehrig's disease, ALS, at the Salk Institute. This will give a better understanding of how these diseases work and yield possible treatments, as will work at Stanford to more effectively isolate heart and blood cells from embryonic stem cells. These are only some of the more than 100 labs in California now working.

One might say: All right, why not let the private sector and the State address this problem? Why do we need Federal research? I want to concentrate a few moments on that. The actions of California and the actions of other private and public institutions do not substitute for Federal funding and a standardized national policy. Much of this debate focuses on stem cell lines themselves, but scientists need much more to succeed. They need expensive equipment and lab space in which to work and collaborate, and there is the rub. For scientists working on embryonic stem cells, this means taking great care not to intermingle their work on approved stem cell lines with those that are not approved. If Federal funds, for example, built a lab or bought a freezer, a petri dish, or a test tube, these resources cannot be used on research involving lines not included in the President's policy. As I said, there are no lines left in the President's policy. Therefore, they can't be used. This has created a logistical nightmare.

The duplication and careful recordkeeping required is an enormous disadvantage faced by the U.S. stem cell scientists. Many have gone to extreme lengths to ensure they follow these regulations. The stakes are high: Any mistake could result in the loss of Federal grants for a researcher's lab.

Let me give a few examples. University of Minnesota researcher Meri Firpo buys one brand of pens for her lab that receives Government money and another brand of pens for use in her privately funded lab. This helps her ensure that a ballpoint pen purchased with Federal grant money is not used to record results in her lab that works with stem cell lines not covered by the President's policy.

UCLA is using a complex accounting system to allocate Federal and private dollars in careful proportion to the amount of time a researcher spends working on either approved or unapproved stem cell lines. A stem cell researcher, Jeanne Loring at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla, CA, designed labels for all her equipment: Stem cells in a green circle denote equipment that can be used with all

stem cell lines, while equipment bought with Federal funds is marked with a red circle with a slash through it.

At the University of California in San Francisco, biologist Susan Fisher worked for 2 years to cultivate stem cell lines in a privately funded makeshift lab. Unfortunately, the power--the electricity--in her lab failed. She couldn't move her lines into the industrial-strength freezers in the other lab because they were federally funded. The stem cell lines on which she had worked for 2 years melted and were gone. So 2 years of work was out the window because of this ridiculous situation.

Money that could otherwise be devoted to research is instead used to build labs and purchase duplicate equipment, and the cost is significant. Scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, MA, didn't want to fall behind international stem cell leaders, so they established a second lab. They had to buy a $52,000 microscope, two incubators which cost $7,500, and a $6,500 centrifuge. They already owned this equipment. They had the equipment, but they couldn't use it because that equipment was published with Federal dollars. To me, this makes no sense. I don't think we can afford this kind of wasteful duplication with what are very precious research dollars. Our scientists should be focused on investigating disease, not worrying about who pays for their pens or their test tubes. So bottom line: We need a reasonable Federal policy that includes funding for viable stem cell lines.

I don't need to tell my colleagues about the famous faces and the average people who are behind this legislation. It is nearly 70 percent of the population. I don't have to tell my colleagues about Michael J. Fox, who showed the Nation the true face of Parkinson's disease. I don't have to tell my colleagues about First Lady Nancy Reagan, who has spoken out in support of this and other legislation, or Christopher Reeve, who lived his life refusing to accept that his spinal cord injury would never be healed, or Dana Reeve, who stood by her husband and then tragically lost her own battle with cancer. Just as important are the millions of Americans who may not have a famous face, but put everything they have in us in the hope that we will do the right thing. The right thing is pretty simple. It is to give them a chance to live-- to live.

That is what we are talking about. I don't think there is any other piece of legislation that more involves the right to life than this piece of legislation.

These are people who are going to die. They live with catastrophic, often terminal diseases; they suffer immeasurably. Suddenly, there might well one day be a cure, or their disease might be put in remission. The kind of research might be done that can mend a broken spinal cord. How can we not support this? How can we look at the facts? Life or death is not involved for the embryo that is used. That is exactly what this legislation is. These are embryos that have no chance at life. All we ask is that they be put to work to protect human life. It seems to me that is not too much.

I hope this bill not only will pass here by a substantial margin but that some way, somehow, the 67 votes we need in this body to overturn a Presidential veto will be present. I think the American people demand no less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs, West LA VA, campus is protected for the use of America's Veterans.

The bill would: require the VA Secretary to provide the Congressional Appropriations and Veterans Committees a comprehensive report regarding the master plan for the West LA VA facility and connected property.

The VA was required under Public Law 105-368 to develop a master plan for the West LA VA property.

If the VA has failed to developed the plan, the legislation requires it to complete a master plan prior to implementing any action based on the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative.

The VA would be prohibited from issuing any enhanced-use lease agreements for the West LA VA property until the master plan is completed and submitted to Congress.

Prevent the VA Secretary from implementing any portion of the master plan until 120 days after the submission of the plan to the Appropriations and Veterans Committees.

In addition, the Secretary would be expressly prohibited from pursuing development initiatives regarding the West LA VA property not relating to direct Veterans services unless explicitly authorized by Congress through legislation.

Direct Veterans services are defined in this legislation as any services ``directly related'' to maintaining the health, welfare, and support of Veterans.

Last year, the Senate approved similar language in the FY07 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West LA VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills--including MILCON/VA--were ultimately packaged together in a Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions that have previously been taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Last month, I joined with my colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson strongly objecting to recent decisions by the VA relating to the West LA VA facility and land.

Over the past year alone, the VA has permitted the construction of a facility for the Fox Entertainment Group on the West LA VA property, and has approved a lease agreement with Enterprise Car Rental to operate on the campus.

In addition, the VA has allowed the Westside Shepherd of the Hill Church to rent a building on the property in which to hold its Sunday services and provided additional housing space for the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA).

The VA reportedly has also considered lease projects such as movie productions, a drive-in theather, a circus event, and a golf course.

This must be put to a stop and the legislation I introduce today would do just that.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 400 acres of land were donated to the government in 1888 specifically for Veterans and should remain that way--just as then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi promised during a visit to Los Angeles in February 2002.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today along with Senator Boxer as cosponsor to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor.

The Rim of the Valley Corridor is an example of a highly threatened habitat area, the Mediterranean chaparral ecosystem. Connecting to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests, the Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Conejo, and Santa Clarita Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, and San Rafael Hills.

There is a great need for expanded parkland in southern California. While the Los Angeles metropolitan region has the second-largest urban concentration in the United States, the area has one of the lowest ratios of park-and-recreation-lands per thousand-population of any urban area in the country.

Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, hemmed in on all sides by development.

With the passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area.

With the inclusion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle. By creating a single contiguous Rim of the Valley Trail, people will enjoy greater access to existing trails in the Recreational Area.

Within a National Recreation Area, the National Park Service is prohibited from exercising the powers of eminent domain, and private property may be purchased from voluntary sellers only.

The bill includes a provision directing the Department of the Interior to analyze any effects that a proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will have on private land within or bordering the area. Any such effects will be thoroughly considered as the study moves forward.

After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether all or portions of the Rim of the Valley Corridor warrant inclusion in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Adam Schiff plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his commitment to this issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water District. These projects will produce approximately 95,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project.

The federal investment required is limited to approximately 10 percent of the projects' cost, or about $30 million.

This legislation is intended to be the companion to H.R. 122, sponsored by David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert, Joe Baca, and Gary Miller.

This legislation has broad support and has already passed the House, and in fact similar legislation to H.R. 122 also passed the House of Representatives in each of the previous two Congresses.

It is time for this legislation to pass the Senate as well and be enacted into law. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support the water recycling and groundwater remediation projects in this bill. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these projects.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative would authorize two project components. The first will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency--IEUA--and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District--CVWD--will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana--through the Fontana Water Company--Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga-- through the Cucamonga Valley Water District--and the Monte Vista Water District.

I want to say a few words about the importance of water recycling projects.

The development of recycled water can bring significant amounts of water ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre- feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years.

Water recycling is also a bipartisan initiative in California, as witnessed by the many Republican and Democratic House cosponsors of the House versions of the bill I introduce today.

Water recycling also has significant greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The greenhouse gas emission reductions attributed to local development and use of recycled water within Inland Empire Utilities Agency's service area is roughly 100,000 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.

With only a small percentage of the total recycled water available being used in Southern California, approximately 10 percent, there is a huge potential for additional energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions from aggressive development of recycled water supplies.

California is not the only State engaged in water recycling. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, EI Paso, San Antonio, Portland, and other western metropolitan areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise, along with my Senate Cancer Coalition cochair, Senator Brownback, to introduce the National Cancer Act of 2007, a bipartisan blueprint for winning the war against cancer.

It includes: grants for targeted drug development; creating ``cancer quarterbacks'' in Medicare; Medicaid coverage for smoking cessation treatments; pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening in underserved populations; continued research into the possible benefits of early detection for lung cancer; loan repayment assistance for cancer prevention researchers; incentives for research into drugs that

prevent cancer from developing and spreading in the first place; provisions to promote the collection and storage of tissue sample, to give researchers the tools they need to use genomic research to create individualized cures; promoting access to clinical trials, as well as investigational therapies for those who are terminally ill; addressing the health needs of the growing number of cancer survivors.

Just over 35 years ago, President Nixon signed into law the original National Cancer Act, creating the National Cancer Institute and making cancer research a priority of the Federal Government. This work has led to tremendous breakthroughs against cancer, including innovative drugs, treatments, and a better understanding of the factors that lead to cancer in the first place. Last year, death rates decreased for 11 of the 15 cancers most common in men, and 10 of the cancers most common in women.

Sixty-five percent of people diagnosed with cancer can now expect to survive at least 5 years. This is good news. But it is not enough. The cost of cancer, in both human and economic terms, remains staggering.

An estimated 1,399,790 Americans were diagnosed with some form of cancer last year.

Approximately 1 of 3 women will develop cancer at some point in her lifetime; for men, the risk is slightly less than 1 in 2.

The National Institutes of Health estimated the overall cost of cancer in 2005 at $209.9 billion.

The price of inaction is too steep. Cancer is, first and foremost, a disease of aging. About 76 percent of cancer cases are diagnosed in patients at age 55 or older. If no fundamental changes are made, the aging of the Baby Boom generation will bring a 20 percent increase in cancer diagnoses.

In the face of these challenges, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, with broad support in the cancer community, set the ambitious goal of ending death and suffering from cancer by 2015. This goal has generated unprecedented excitement and unity, with over 80 Members of the United States Senate signing a letter in support of the effort.

It is time to reexamine and reorient our Nation's cancer policy to meet this ambitious goal. This does not mean that cancer will be eradicated by 2015. As our population ages, cancer will not go away. But we can change the meaning of a cancer diagnosis, and that is what the 2015 goal is about.

Meeting this goal will take a comprehensive approach. It requires detecting cancer earlier, before it spreads and becomes harder to treat. It requires targeted therapies, capable of killing cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. We must provide access to high quality cancer care for those who do get sick. We must also understand more about why people get cancer in the first place, and ways it can be prevented.

Our legislation takes a multifaceted approach to changing the very nature of a cancer diagnosis. The National Cancer Act of 2007 will do the following:

Authorize grants for the development of targeted drugs.

New drug therapies continue to lead us closer to the day in which cancer is a treatable, chronic condition controlled with a simple pill or injection. It has now been 5 years since the drug company Novartis won approval for Gleevec, a targeted drug that has saved the lives of countless patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, CML.

Gleevec demonstrates the promise of this new kind of drug therapy. It blocks the enzymes that help cancer cells grow and divide, leaving healthy cells untouched. When this drug was first introduced, CML patients who were near death recovered and left the hospital. Yet it could not be determined if their remission would last, or if long-term use of this revolutionary drug would prove safe.

We now know that Gleevec is fulfilling this early promise. Before the advent of this drug, CML patients would often suffer a relapse after 2 or 3 years. But a recent study of CML patients taking Gleevec has demonstrated a remarkable 89 percent survival rate after 5 years. The cancer progressed to a more serious stage in only 7 percent of patients during this time period, and only 5 percent were forced to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

These results suggest that patients may be able to stay on Gleevec indefinitely, keeping this formerly deadly cancer under control while leading full and productive lives.

Targeted therapies are now offering hope to patients with many different kinds of cancer: Herceptin for some breast cancers, Iressa for those with small cell lung cancer, Avastin for colorectal cancer. Avastin can extend survival by interfering with the growth of blood vessels that feed the tumor, literally starving it.

These drugs are the future of cancer research. We need more drugs like Gleevec, which transform cancer from a killer to a controllable health condition. This legislation would authorize NCI to make grants to further develop these treatments.

To help with the development of targeted drugs, the bill also calls for the establishment of a task force on surrogate endpoints and biomarkers. They are the mechanisms for measuring the efficacy of cancer treatment at the molecular level, allowing doctors to precisely gauge how a patient is reacting to a treatment, or if a cancer is progressing.

Developing biomarkers for different types of cancer is an essential step, and our bill will establish a program to develop the biomarkers with the most immediate clinical promise.

The bill will also create special reimbursements for coordinating physicians, or ``cancer quarterbacks'' in Medicare. Successful cancer treatment is increasingly complex, reaching across the entire spectrum of the medical profession. It can involve lab tests, CT-scans, surgery, chemotherapy, and a full team of specialists who offer this care. Many patients have no single physician who can guide them through the complicated and sometimes contradictory course of cancer treatment, no professional to advise them what is best.

This bill would require Medicare to pay oncology doctors or nurses to become the overall managers of patients' care, in effect providing every cancer patient with a ``cancer quarterback'' physician to help them coordinate care and make the necessary decisions.

This cancer quarterback can direct care in the manner that best meets the patient's needs, instead of focusing on only a small segment of his or her care.

This legislation requires that State Medicaid drug programs cover smoking cessation treatments in the same manner as all other approved therapies. I have long believed that we will not truly address the burden of cancer until we address tobacco use. I have asked all kinds of cancer experts about what we can do to stop death from cancer, and their answer is always the same: Stop tobacco use.

Tobacco causes 30 percent of cancer deaths and 1 in 5 of all deaths in the United States. It is the leading cause of preventable death. Smoking related costs total $167 billion annually.

According to the CDC, more than 70 percent of American smokers would like to quit. Studies indicate that tobacco use treatment, including smoking cessation aids, will double their chances of success.

Yet under current law, State Medicaid programs are exempted from providing coverage of smoking cessation agents in the same way as they provide coverage of other drugs. Other exemptions include fertility treatments, drugs to promote hair growth, and drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Simply put, smoking cessation aids, which are FDA approved and proven to be effective, do not belong on this list. Denying people access to treatments to help them break a deadly and expensive addiction is flawed policy.

Our bill will remove tobacco cessation products from this list of exemptions, leveling the playing field with other FDA approved products.

Our bill establishes pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening for low-income, uninsured individuals. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has proven very successful in providing low income women with access to potentially life saving screenings. It is now time to provide similar access to colorectal cancer screening.

The need is great. A 2006 study conducted by Northwestern University researchers found that only 7 percent of minority patients without regular

health care access at risk for developing colon cancer are being screened. A 2005 study of New York City residents found that those least likely to have been recommended colorectal screening are low- income or uninsured.

Early detection allows physicians to identify patients with pre- cancerous polyps, and treat them before cancer even develops. These pilot projects identify the best ways to provide access to this lifesaving care for those who are not currently receiving recommended screenings.

This bill will authorize continued research on the potential of CT scans to detect lung cancer early. before it becomes fatal. Despite all the promising advances against many types of cancer, lung cancer remains the Nation's leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. About 20,000 people who have never smoked are diagnosed with lung cancer each year, and this number is increasing.

We need to learn more about how to screen for lung cancer and detect it early, before it has advanced. There is much we need to learn before scientists can make a definitive recommendation about screening and its potential benefits for both smokers and non-smokers.

To help scientists learn more, this bill will authorize funding to provide CT scans to those with a history of heavy smoking. This further study will help determine whether this promising technology is indeed the method we need to make progress against the leading cancer killer.

This legislation expands the existing NIH loan repayment program to provide assistance to researchers who make a commitment to working on cancer prevention research. This will encourage the best and brightest to pursue work that will help us to better understand what causes cancer and how we can stop it from occurring.

The bill will encourage and support research into new drugs and treatments, called chemopreventatives, which can stop precancerous cells from becoming tumors. Decades of research has enabled physicians to prescribe medications to prevent serious illness, such as statin drugs to lower cholesterol, and drugs to treat high blood pressure before it leads to strokes.

Progress in drug development to stop cancer has been far more limited. The promise of this field was made clear when, last year, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, licensed Gardasil, a vaccine to stop the spread of cervical cancer. Gardasil protects against the two forms of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes approximately 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. This vaccine could virtually eliminate cervical cancer during the lifetime of our daughters and granddaughters.

We need more chemoprevention techniques like Guardasil to guard against other types of cancer. People at high risk for a specific type of cancer may one day take a daily pill to stop abnormal cells from progressing to full blown cancer. Though it will take a long time for these promises to become reality, this research is the future of cancer care.

In order to encourage this work, our legislation would grant Orphan Drug Act protections to treatments designed to treat high-risk conditions in individuals who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer, but if left untreated, face a high risk of developing cancer.

This research will require new resources in order to have the best chance of success. To build the foundations for success, our bill will encourage biospecimen collection.

Scientists are beginning to understand the significant role that genetics plays in the development of cancer. To encourage further study, scientists need access to a variety of tissue, blood, and other samples from both cancer patients and those who are healthy. Our bill codifies guidelines for the collection of these samples and requires that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, draft a report examining potential payment systems for these activities.

We are on the cusp of an age of personalized medicine, in which a cancer patient's tumor can be analyzed to determine what type of treatment will be most effective. Patients will no longer undergo round after round of chemotherapy or radiation in the hopes of finding a treatment regime that works. Collecting and storing blood and tissue samples will provide our researchers with the materials they need to make these important discoveries.

Our bill will promote clinical trial enrollment. Patients willing to try these cutting edge cancer therapies as they emerge face a variety of obstacles. They, or their physicians, might not know what clinical trial opportunities exist. They may need to travel to a far away facility to participate. Our legislation requires the Director of the National Cancer Institute to create a clinical trials program, which includes: an outreach program, to assure that all patients, especially minorities, participate in trials; and a coordination program, to help patients with logistical challenges and the support costs of trial participation.

Our bill creates an oncology compassionate access program. No patient should lose a battle with cancer because bureaucratic hurdles denied him or her access to a potentially lifesaving therapy. Our bill provides for the creation of a new compassionate access program to speed access of investigational therapies for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available treatment options.

Our bill will address the needs of a growing number of cancer survivors. As cancer increasingly becomes a manageable, chronic condition, there will be an increasing number of cancer survivors confronting yet-unknown health challenges. Current cancer survivors number almost 10 million, and this number will only grow. This bill will: expand current cancer surveillance systems to track the health status of cancer survivors; implement a national cancer survivorship action plan, including post treatment health programs; require States to consider the needs of cancer survivors, and their families, in addition to current patients, when drafting their comprehensive cancer control plans.

Require the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to report on their strategies, benchmarks, and progress in meeting the 2015 goal. This will allow Congress to adjust policy as necessary to ensure that the promise of ending death and suffering from cancer is realized.

The state of cancer care has changed drastically since 1971, and it is time that our Federal policies reflect these changes. The 2015 goal is ambitious, and it requires no less than ambitious legislation in response.

I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Collins and Snowe to introduce legislation that will significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from our Nation's transportation sector.

This bill would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles and motor vehicle fuels by 22 percent below projected levels under business as usual by 2030. This reduction is equivalent to the removal of 662 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or taking over 108 million cars off the road for a year. This would save 3.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2030.

It would achieve these reductions by requiring a: 3 percent reduction in emissions from the motor vehicle fuel pool by 2015, with an additional 3 percent reduction every 5 years, and 30 percent reduction in vehicle tailpipe emissions by 2016, with additional reductions every 5 years.

Highway vehicles are responsible for 32 percent of annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global- warming gas. And, motor vehicle emissions will continue to increase as more and more Americans purchase vehicles and the number of miles driven grows.

With more than 240 million motor vehicles on the road, producing 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, increasing our use of low carbon fuels is an essential part of a climate-safe transportation strategy.

So, the signs could not be clearer: It's time to sound the death- knell for the era of gas-guzzling motor vehicles. It is time to utilize improved vehicle technology and to increase access to cleaner, renewable fuels at the pump.

First, this bill will achieve this goal by increasing the availability of low carbon emitting fuels for motor vehicles.

We must start considering fuel emissions not only in terms of emissions produced at the tailpipe, but also in terms of the emissions generated by the production and transportation of fuels. The total emissions of a fuel,

from production to end-use, are known as the ``lifecycle emissions'' of a fuel.

Not all fuels are created equal in terms of emissions; in fact, not all fuels within a give fuel category are created equal.

For example, ethanol produced from corn emits only about 10 to 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy delivered compared to petroleum-based gasoline. In contrast, ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass achieves an 80 to 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy.

Electricity would also qualify as an alternative fuel under this bill. The lifecycle emissions of electricity produced by traditional coal-fired power plants will be far greater than that produced by wind or other zero-carbon electricity generation technologies.

By 2009, this bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quantify the total lifecycle emissions of all motor vehicle fuels. The bill would also require EPA to develop a fuel labeling process to provide this information to consumers at the pump.

Armed with this information about the lifecycle emissions of different fuels, oil refiners and importers would be required to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their entire fuel pool by 3 percent below projected levels by 2015. And, every 5 years thereafter, emissions would be cut by an additional 3 percent.

To help fuel providers meet the mandated emissions reductions in a cost-effective manner, the bill would establish a carbon-credit trading market.

This would reduce emissions from motor vehicle fuels by 10 percent below projected levels by 2030 and would increase the supply of low- carbon fuels such as biodiesel, E-85, hydrogen, electricity, and others.

Second, the bill would achieve reductions in transportation sector emissions by federalizing California's landmark tailpipe emissions standard. California passed a landmark law in 2002 that required a reduction in tailpipe emissions and was the first State in the country to do so. This would require automakers to reduce tailpipe emissions, such as carbon dioxide, by 30 percent by 2016. It will also require EPA to tighten the reductions every 5 years.

Combined, these provisions would achieve a 22 percent reduction in transportation sector emissions below projected levels by 2030.

Additional provisions in the bill mandate: auto manufacturers to optimize dual-fueled vehicles to improve their fuel economy when running on alternative fuels, and alternative fuel vehicles, and only alternative fuel vehicles, come with a green fuel cap. This would alert consumers that these vehicles can accept other fuels besides traditional gasoline.

Just as it is necessary to reduce emissions in the electricity and industrial sectors, it is equally necessary to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. This bill makes significant, yet feasible, strides to reduce emissions through upgrades in vehicle technology and the incorporation of lower lifecycle emission fuels into the motor vehicle fuel pool. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs, West LA VA, campus is protected for the use of America's Veterans.

The bill would: require the VA Secretary to provide the Congressional Appropriations and Veterans Committees a comprehensive report regarding the master plan for the West LA VA facility and connected property.

The VA was required under Public Law 105-368 to develop a master plan for the West LA VA property.

If the VA has failed to developed the plan, the legislation requires it to complete a master plan prior to implementing any action based on the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative.

The VA would be prohibited from issuing any enhanced-use lease agreements for the West LA VA property until the master plan is completed and submitted to Congress.

Prevent the VA Secretary from implementing any portion of the master plan until 120 days after the submission of the plan to the Appropriations and Veterans Committees.

In addition, the Secretary would be expressly prohibited from pursuing development initiatives regarding the West LA VA property not relating to direct Veterans services unless explicitly authorized by Congress through legislation.

Direct Veterans services are defined in this legislation as any services ``directly related'' to maintaining the health, welfare, and support of Veterans.

Last year, the Senate approved similar language in the FY07 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West LA VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills--including MILCON/VA--were ultimately packaged together in a Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions that have previously been taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Last month, I joined with my colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson strongly objecting to recent decisions by the VA relating to the West LA VA facility and land.

Over the past year alone, the VA has permitted the construction of a facility for the Fox Entertainment Group on the West LA VA property, and has approved a lease agreement with Enterprise Car Rental to operate on the campus.

In addition, the VA has allowed the Westside Shepherd of the Hill Church to rent a building on the property in which to hold its Sunday services and provided additional housing space for the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA).

The VA reportedly has also considered lease projects such as movie productions, a drive-in theather, a circus event, and a golf course.

This must be put to a stop and the legislation I introduce today would do just that.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 400 acres of land were donated to the government in 1888 specifically for Veterans and should remain that way--just as then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi promised during a visit to Los Angeles in February 2002.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today along with Senator Boxer as cosponsor to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor.

The Rim of the Valley Corridor is an example of a highly threatened habitat area, the Mediterranean chaparral ecosystem. Connecting to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests, the Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Conejo, and Santa Clarita Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, and San Rafael Hills.

There is a great need for expanded parkland in southern California. While the Los Angeles metropolitan region has the second-largest urban concentration in the United States, the area has one of the lowest ratios of park-and-recreation-lands per thousand-population of any urban area in the country.

Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, hemmed in on all sides by development.

With the passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area.

With the inclusion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle. By creating a single contiguous Rim of the Valley Trail, people will enjoy greater access to existing trails in the Recreational Area.

Within a National Recreation Area, the National Park Service is prohibited from exercising the powers of eminent domain, and private property may be purchased from voluntary sellers only.

The bill includes a provision directing the Department of the Interior to analyze any effects that a proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will have on private land within or bordering the area. Any such effects will be thoroughly considered as the study moves forward.

After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether all or portions of the Rim of the Valley Corridor warrant inclusion in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Adam Schiff plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his commitment to this issue.

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