Floor Statements

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.

I thank the Senator very much. Thank you, Mr. President.

I very much commend the Senator from North Dakota. I think he said it well and in a very inspiring way. If I had to summarize it, it would be that we in America try to take care of our own--not only people in other nations, but people who have been the victims of real disaster in this country.

The fact is we haven't been doing it for 3 years, and the disasters have piled up: in 2005, 2006, and 2007. This package takes care of that problem. In my State, California, we suffered two devastating disasters in the last 2 years which have resulted in Federal disaster declarations: a heat wave and a freeze. We are currently suffering a drought. Governor Schwarzenegger has certified through March 13 a loss from the freeze of $1.397 billion. The total damage has yet to be figured.

I think people don't understand how big this was in California. We have losses in 35 out of 58 counties, many the most productive in the country, that produce more agricultural products than 22 other States, in 40 different types of crops. They include avocados, strawberries, grapes, walnuts, guavas, lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, artichokes, asparagus, and celery.

The losses include $817 million in damage to California's citrus crops. Lemons, limes, mandarins, grapefruit, navel oranges, and Valencias are dead in the field. Here is what some of it looks like. This is one tree.

Now, most people know Florida has oranges, but those are the oranges we make juice out of. When you eat an orange, a tangerine, or a grapefruit, or you put a lemon in your ice tea, those fruits are from California. But not this year. We have lost at least 50 percent of the navel orange crop, 65 percent of the Valencia crop, and 65 percent of our mandarins. My farmers need this assistance.

Some of my colleagues are asking, why do we need to provide this funding? Farmers should have their own insurance. The answer is, in California most farmers already do have insurance, but here is the rub: It is not going to be nearly enough to cover the damage.

Let me provide an example. According to the Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency, citrus growers will be able to collect up to $311 million in crop insurance. Now, that sounds like a lot, but the farming costs for California's citrus industry for this year's operations alone total $560 million. What do I mean by farming costs? This is the amount farmers have spent to irrigate, spray, prune, everything that is necessary to prepare a crop for harvest. But this year, there is no harvest. Therefore, they absorb the $560 million.

They also have to begin to get ready for next year's harvest. They need to get their loans. That will also be an incurrence of $560 million in normal farming costs. That adds up to $1.2 billion in regular farming costs, and only $311 million--at most--in available insurance they can recoup. And they are not guaranteed a crop next year.

Add on to that the $100 million these growers spent in January on wind machines, irrigation, and other methods to protect their orchards from the freezing temperatures, plus the costs they are incurring now to remove the dead fruit and branches.

Now, 85 percent of citrus is grown by family farmers--that is just a fact--not the big agricultural combines. These are responsible farmers. In fact, 75 percent of the citrus acres in California are insured, but again, insurance alone will not cover the needs of my constituents. This is why we need this assistance.

When some people saw there was also an appropriation for dairy milk loss, some people actually laughed. I was offended, because in July of 2006, California experienced 2 weeks of blistering, triple digit temperatures. For 12 days the San Joaquin Valley, the most productive agricultural region of this country, had temperatures over 105 degrees.

What does this mean? Well, 20,552 milk cows died and 10,738 calves died. Those are counted animals--over 30,000 dead. That doesn't include our losses in poultry. There were so many dead carcasses, the rendering plants could not handle the load. The State temporarily lifted the ban on burying dead livestock in landfills, but that was still not enough. These cows died because of the heat. Even the cows that survived produced 25 percent less milk than is normal. So the death of these animals, plus the stress put on the ones still producing, resulted in more than $228 million in milk losses for my dairymen.

In addition, because regular breeding could not take place for a month because of the death of so many animals, my farmers will again face at least $228 million in losses for 2007. That is why my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, has joined with me in helping us push for the addition of this relief into our emergency supplemental.

This is a total of $460 million in losses. We are asking for only $95 million, and that is in this supplemental. What is more, this funding can be accessed by dairymen on the gulf coast, including Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, who also suffered losses due to the hurricanes.

Let me conclude. This has not been easy, and I thank Senator Byrd, Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Senator Kohl, and Senator Reid for their work on this Agricultural Disaster package, and also the Republican leadership on the Appropriations Committee who acceded to the request.

America is a great nation, and one of the reasons we are a great nation is we don't only care about others; we care about our own. If there is ever a time when we could help our own, it is in this supplemental appropriation. So what I say is: Hands off, please. We have worked hard to get where we are. The losses have been substantial. The disasters have been large. Families who can't pay their mortgages, who lose their boats if they are fishermen, lose their farms if they can't make the payments, can be helped by this assistance. So I hope it remains in. I hope we resist an effort to remove this from the supplemental package. Again, I thank those who have helped with this.

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

Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator Wyden's amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that would provide critical funding for a multiyear extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and fully fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program.

This amendment provides nearly $5 billion for rural schools, counties and communities through 2012--crucial to California's rural counties, which face a devastating loss in Federal funding.

Last Thursday, March 22, my colleagues and I on the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the inclusion of $425 million in emergency appropriations to fund the Secure Rural Schools program for 1 year in the emergency supplemental--helping to immediately address the pending budget crisis confronting over 700 counties in 39 States, including my State of California.

This emergency funding adds $425 million to the $100 million available from the 25 percent of receipts that compensate counties for reductions in timber harvest on public lands.

However, our counties should not have to rely on emergency funding year after year and be faced with such uncertainty.

We must provide our rural counties with a stable funding stream so that they are not in the same dire situation next year and can plan for the future.

This amendment, supported by the National Association of County Officials, the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, and the National Education Association, would maintain a safety net for counties while gliding down funding in a predictable manner so counties can fiscally prepare for the future.

Specifically, this amendment would provide $2.8 billion in funding over 5 years for a multiyear extension of the Secure Rural Schools Program. It would also provide $1.9 billion to fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program for 5 years, from 2008 through 2012. This program compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in the State. It would also provide funding beyond fiscal year 2007 to be fully paid for by a combination of tax offsets.

In addition, it would provide California, Oregon, and Washington with additional transition funding in the early years to minimize the effects of the overall decline of the total authorization level to $379 million in 2011 under the Secure Rural Schools Program. The additional transition funding for these States--California, Oregon, and Washington--would also help counties with adjusting to the new funding formula under the Secure Rural Schools Program.

The new funding formula would be based on the current formula of historical payments and the current acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with mechanism to focus support on those communities in greatest economic need.

Under this amendment, California's counties would receive $283 million in funding from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011 from the Secure Rural Schools Program. Without this funding, mostly rural California counties would face sudden, catastrophic cuts. Counties in California would lose $57 million this year alone if the Secure Rural Schools Program is not extended.

Last year, California's counties received $69 million to fund their schools and road and forest improvement projects from this program. The loss of these Federal funds would have a devastating impact on California's rural counties, resulting in school closures, teacher layoffs, and some schools could even face bankruptcy or State takeover. Furthermore, essential road and forest improvement projects would be jeopardized.

For example, Trinity County received almost $8 million in funding, and all school districts in the county could be faced with bankruptcy and would have to eliminate the school curriculum, cut one full-time school nurse--leaving one nurse to cover the entire 4,000-square-mile county--and cut music and arts programs.

Plumas County, which received $7.5 million, would have to lay off teachers--resulting in increased class sizes in grades K through 12-- eliminate all school librarians, and close school cafeterias.

Lassen County received $4 million, and over half of the 10 school districts in the county would be faced with budget insolvency-- resulting in school libraries being closed, teacher layoffs, the elimination of school-based health services, and the reduction of teacher training and student textbooks.

We simply cannot allow this to happen.

It is critical that we provide immediate and long-term funding to our rural counties that depend on the Secure Rural Schools Program for their livelihood.

This amendment would also fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, PILT, Program, providing $1.9 billion over 5 years.

This means California would receive an estimated $11 million or more in additional dollars annually on top of the $21 million the State currently receives from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.

In recognition of the reality that Federal lands pay no local property taxes, PILT compensates counties for the Federal lands within their borders. PILT compensation is especially important for rural counties with heavy concentrations of Federal lands that reduce their available tax base.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can ensure that our Nation's rural counties continue to receive much needed resources to serve their schools and communities.

Mr. President, we have before us today a supplemental appropriations bill that will finally start the process of bringing our troops home.

The United States today is in its fifth year in Iraq. The administration offers no apparent road out of Iraq. It offers only an escalation plan that keeps growing, and an open-ended commitment to a civil war.

The Congress of the United States has an obligation to express its voice on this matter and to offer a solution.

The search for a solution has been difficult. We have come to the floor many times this year, and we have struggled to find the right course of action.

I believe that path is before us today.

This legislation would initiate the orderly drawdown of our forces and redefine the mission for a small supporting force that would remain. It sets benchmarks for the administration and for the Iraqi Government.

This legislation calls for actions which this administration has stubbornly resisted, including the prompt phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. This redeployment would begin within 120 days of the legislation being enacted.

The legislation sets a goal of March 31, 2008, for redeploying major combat forces from Iraq. A smaller force would be allowed to remain, with its mission limited to protecting American and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

This supplemental also calls for a vigorous ``diplomatic, political, and economic strategy.''

This strategy would involve ``sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.''

This is the key to ending the violence in Iraq--the recognition that the solution to Iraq lies not in U.S. force but in political accommodation among the Iraqis.

This legislation also sets benchmarks for the Iraqi Government.

These include deploying trained and ready Iraqi security forces in Baghdad; strengthening the authority of Iraqi commanders to make tactical and operational decisions without political intervention; disarming militias and ensuring that Iraqi security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Iraqi Constitution; enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that Iraq's oil is distributed to all Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; enacting and implementing legislation that reforms the de- Ba'athification process in Iraq; ensuring a fair process for amending the Iraqi Constitution to protect minority rights; and enacting and implementing rules to protect the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament.

Finally, this supplemental requires that the top U.S. commander in Iraq report to Congress on progress by the Iraqi Government in meeting these benchmarks--30 days after this act is enacted and every 90 days thereafter.

Our Nation's present course of action is untenable and unsustainable.

Our very purpose for being in Iraq bears little resemblance to the reasons Congress authorized the use of military force in October 2002. What do we have as we enter the fifth year of this war? A terrible human toll in dead and injured--3,200 Americans killed, more than 24,000 wounded, with estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths that soar well into the six figures and a toll on our Treasury that is unsustainable.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Iraq war is already the fourth most expensive war in U.S. history, behind World War II, Korea and Vietnam. We are spending roughly $8.4 billion in Iraq a month--more than $2 billion a week. So far we have spent nearly $400 billion in Iraq. Think of the opportunity costs to this Nation. Wars cost money. I understand this. But we cannot continue this level of spending on a distant civil war with no exit strategy. If we keep our combat forces in Iraq for years to come--as this administration seems intent on doing--it will likely become the second costliest war we have ever waged.

Our military cannot continue to bear this heavy burden. This war has eroded our troop readiness, depleted military equipment, and left our fighting forces weary.

Consider these developments:

Army and Marine officers say the rapid pace of deployments into Iraq has put the readiness of their troops into a ``death spiral''--with 40 percent of gear worn out and soldiers and marines left fatigued and undertrained. Our Nation owes our fighting forces better than this.

The 3rd Infantry Division, scrambling to meet deployment orders, reportedly has sent injured troops back to Iraq--including ones so badly injured that they could not put on their body armor. We owe our fighting forces better than this.

The Army's medical facilities are understaffed and underfunded--not just at Building 18 at Walter Reed--and its medical staff is overwhelmed. We owe our fighting forces better than this.

Some 1,800 Marine Corps reservists will get letters this week notifying them that they are being involuntarily recalled for a year, thanks to a shortage of volunteers to fill some jobs in Iraq.

This follows news that should make everyone in this Chamber take notice: The 82nd Airborne Division--the storied ``All-American'' Division--is so strained by this war that it can no longer respond on short notice to a crisis.

For decades, the 82nd Airborne has kept a brigade on round-the-clock alert--ready to respond to a crisis anywhere around the globe within 18 to 72 hours. But The New York Times reported on March 20 that the 82nd Airborne can no longer meet this standard--a standard it has long held with pride.

I believe the supplemental that we have before us today is the solution to the Iraq problem. It provides a vehicle for Congress to express its sense on Iraq and to require the President to take concrete, measurable steps forward. It sets clear deadlines and requires vigorous regional diplomacy. It sends a message to an administration marked by arrogance and declares to the Iraqi Government that their time has come.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, said as much Monday, March 26, in his farewell news conference.

Mr. Khalilzad was direct: The Iraqi leadership must understand, he said, that time is running out.

Finally, most importantly, this legislation begins the process of bringing our troops home.

We have a choice today. We can vote for a clear-headed Iraq policy or do nothing. We can exercise our constitutional oversight duties or we can be a rubberstamp for a failed Iraq policy.

I urge my colleagues to choose the first path. To choose the other is to abdicate our responsibility.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow the Los Angeles World Airports

to provide the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts, which lie directly in the Los Angeles International Airport's flight path, with noise reduction funds.

This bill would authorize the Los Angeles World Airports to allow the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects at these schools.

In 1980, the Lennox School District and the City of Los Angeles settled a lawsuit, allowing aircraft carrying up to 40 million people per year to fly overhead the schools. The City also agreed to provide approximately $2.5 million to the Lennox School District.

Currently, an airplane flies a few hundred feet above the Lennox and Inglewood schools about every three minutes. The noise is deafening. It rattles windows, disrupts lessons, and makes it very difficult for these students to learn.

In February 2005, the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts settled a lawsuit with the Los Angeles World Airports under which the Los Angeles International Airport agreed to provide the School Districts with more than $110 million in noise mitigation funds over 10 years. These funds are essential for the improvement of conditions at these schools.

Unfortunately, the Federal Aviation Administration interpreted the 1980 agreement and Federal law in a way that prevents the payment of the funds under the 2005 agreement.

Thus, Federal legislation is necessary to allow the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects at the Lennox and Inglewood schools. I am introducing legislation to do just this.

This bill was drafted with the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration, and it has the support of the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts, the Los Angeles World Airports, and the Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Jane Harman, will introduce this same bill today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this non-controversial legislation that will allow for the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects in the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow the Los Angeles World Airports

to provide the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts, which lie directly in the Los Angeles International Airport's flight path, with noise reduction funds.

This bill would authorize the Los Angeles World Airports to allow the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects at these schools.

In 1980, the Lennox School District and the City of Los Angeles settled a lawsuit, allowing aircraft carrying up to 40 million people per year to fly overhead the schools. The City also agreed to provide approximately $2.5 million to the Lennox School District.

Currently, an airplane flies a few hundred feet above the Lennox and Inglewood schools about every three minutes. The noise is deafening. It rattles windows, disrupts lessons, and makes it very difficult for these students to learn.

In February 2005, the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts settled a lawsuit with the Los Angeles World Airports under which the Los Angeles International Airport agreed to provide the School Districts with more than $110 million in noise mitigation funds over 10 years. These funds are essential for the improvement of conditions at these schools.

Unfortunately, the Federal Aviation Administration interpreted the 1980 agreement and Federal law in a way that prevents the payment of the funds under the 2005 agreement.

Thus, Federal legislation is necessary to allow the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects at the Lennox and Inglewood schools. I am introducing legislation to do just this.

This bill was drafted with the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration, and it has the support of the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts, the Los Angeles World Airports, and the Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Jane Harman, will introduce this same bill today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this non-controversial legislation that will allow for the use of passenger facility fees for noise reduction projects in the Lennox and Inglewood School Districts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to establish the second annual ``Endangered Species Day'' on May 18, 2007. I am submitting this resolution with Senators Collins, Feingold, Levin, Snowe, Kerry, Biden, Cantwell, Lieberman, Wyden, Clinton, Crapo, and Sanders whose co-sponsorship I appreciate.

I want to commend my constituent Mr. David Robinson, who first suggested the establishment of an ``Endangered Species Day.'' Individuals like Mr. Robinson do make a difference.

The designation of an ``Endangered Species Day'' provides a multitude of opportunities for young people, students, and the general public to learn more about endangered species both in our country and abroad.

Last year, thirty-six events were held across the country to highlight endangered species success stories. The Governor of Maine, the Rhode Island State legislature, and the cities and counties of Santa Barbara, San Diego, and San Francisco also declared State and local Endangered Species Days. Zoos and aquariums across the country, such as the Roger Williams Zoo and the San Diego Zoo, also held educational events.

Endangered Species Day 2006 provided an opportunity for schools, libraries, museums, zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, agencies, businesses, community groups, and conservation organizations to educate the public about the importance of protecting endangered species and to highlight everyday actions that individuals and groups can take to help protect our nation's wildlife, fish, and plants.

Based on the success of last year, I believe that ``Endangered Species Day'' fosters increased communication and awareness about many of the most endangered species by encouraging such activities as school field trips to the

zoo or attending a lecture at the local library.

In my home State of California, I am especially proud of the conservation and management efforts that have helped significantly restore populations of California condor, winter run chinook salmon, the least Bell's vireo songbird, and the California gray whale.

Despite these success stories, we need to be aware that more can be done. At this time, we have more than 1,800 species in the U.S. and abroad, which are designated as ``at risk'' for extinction. One small step is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the circumstances facing many of these endangered species and educating the public about these species.

I am submitting this resolution with the hope that ``Endangered Species Day'' can spark the wonder and interest in our youth to continue the conservation efforts we have begun, but still are far from finishing.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on the Smithsonian Institution.

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

Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I call up amendment No. 574.

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

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Boxer as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator Kyl.

SCAAP is a vital program to the States and localities to reimburse them for the costs associated with housing undocumented criminal aliens. Funding for SCAAP is authorized in the amount of $950 million for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2011, but we have never fully funded SCAAP.

Instead we have paid only pennies on the dollar for these costs. In my home State of California, there are currently over 20,000 criminal alien inmates. It costs California approximately $715 million per year to house these aliens.

In 2007, Congress appropriated $399 million for SCAAP. In this budget resolution, SCAAP is funded at $407 million.

In 2005, a total of 758 applications from 50 different States and the U.S. territories were submitted for fiscal year 2005 SCAAP funds.

The real problem here is that the problem of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. Yet the Federal Government consistently shifts the costs for enforcing immigration laws onto our States. This cost- shifting is not fair to State governments.

My amendment makes SCAAP funding whole by providing an additional $543 million to this program.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment to the budget resolution that Senator Chambliss and I have offered to increase FY2008 funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program to $900 million.

The need for this amendment is clear. This country is currently experiencing a violent crime surge unlike anything we have seen in more than a decade. Just a few weeks ago, the Police Executive Research Forum reported that their survey of 56 cities and sheriffs' departments showed that, from 2004 to 2006, homicides increased overall by 10 percent, aggravated assaults with guns rose 10 percent, and robberies rose 12 percent. In just 2 years.

Of course, these updated survey results mirror the FBI's own statistics, which showed that in 2005 violent crime rose in every region of the country, and by 2.5 percent overall--the largest reported increase in 15 years. For the first 6 months of 2006, the surge in violent crime was even worse--3.7 percent overall, according to the

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

This budget resolution provides Congress with a $2.9 trillion spending blueprint for the upcoming year. It establishes a process and guidelines by which Congress will determine the revenues and spending for the Federal Government.

I support this resolution. It puts our Nation on the road back to fiscal responsibility. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about our Nation's fiscal health.

We have moved a long way from where we were 6 years ago. When President Clinton left office, he left with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. That surplus could have allowed Congress to eliminate the Nation's debt by 2010.

But today, the Nation faces a $248 billion deficit and the debt has grown to $8.9 trillion. This translates to roughly $30,000 owed by each and every United States citizen.

It took almost 200 years for every President from George Washington to George H.W. Bush to amass $2.6 trillion in debt. President Bush matched their $2.6 trillion in debt in just 5 years.

And, over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projects the interest payments on the debt will be more than $3 trillion. That is $3 trillion that cannot be spent on priorities like healthcare, education or homeland security.

This should be a major concern to the American people.

Our Nation is in this situation because of the misplaced policies of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress.

The President's tax cuts have cost this Nation over $1 trillion. Over the next 10 years, these tax cuts will cost over $3 trillion more.

The vast majority of these tax cuts have gone to benefit the very wealthy.

Additionally, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost $510 billion to date. And there is no end in sight.

This has squeezed the budget and made it difficult to fund all those programs that deserve funding.

Let me tell you what this means.

When the President submitted his budget proposal to Congress on February 5, it was deeply flawed.

It cut or eliminated 141 programs, programs that are of great importance to the American people.

My home State of California was especially hard hit.

The President's budget proposed cutting Community Development Block Grants by 21 percent. This would have meant that California's CDBG funding would be cut by almost $140 million from its 2006 funding level.

This would be devastating.

In the City of Victorville, CDBG funds have helped revitalize areas of the city 3000 residents call home.

In Los Angeles, these funds have allowed 8,500 housing units to be rehabilitated. CDBG funds have preserved over 2,000 jobs and removed over 41 million square feet of graffiti.

Yet the President's budget did not support this important program.

The President's budget also short-changed the law enforcement programs that Americans rely on for their continued safety.

The Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program was eliminated under the President's budget, as was the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. As a border State, these programs are essential to California.

Additionally, under the President's budget, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, was given only half of the funding that is necessary to continue to serve the children already enrolled in this program.

The good news is the budget before us today restores many of the President's cuts. For instance:

It funds CDBG at 2007 levels, plus an adjustment for inflation. California State and local governments can continue to work for housing and community development in low-income areas.

The budget also restores funding to the COPS program. It allocates $522 million for COPS, a program that has put over 100,000 police officers on the streets in communities across the country. And we have adopted an amendment by my colleague Senator Biden to increase COPS funding to its authorized level of $1.5 billion. I was proud to support this increase.

This budget also restores $407 million for SCAAP. And through an amendment I offered and the Senate has adopted, will increase the funding for SCAAP to its authorized level of $950 million. California has the highest number of undocumented aliens in the country. And California prisons house over 20,000 criminal aliens, incurring tremendous costs. Last year alone, California spent over $715 million keeping criminal aliens off the streets.

This budget increases spending on SCHIP from $2 billion in the President's budget to $50 billion. The $48 billion increase will allow for continued coverage of all currently enrolled children in SCHIP. This budget then goes one step further. It expands SCHIP, insuring an additional six million children who are currently eligible for this program but are not enrolled. Young Americans should not suffer as a result of the President's misplaced priorities.

Additionally, this budget provides critically needed funding for vital Veterans' care programs. Specifically, it provides over $43 billion for Veterans, $3.5 billion more than the proposal offered by President Bush. This money will allow our brave troops to obtain the medical care they deserve.

After the alarming revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other Veterans' facilities around the country, it is clear that we need to ensure that VA facilities provide the highest level of care. This proposal funds medical and prosthetic research and information technology; and it ensures that baseline operating expenses are met.

In addition, the proposal provides middle-income taxpayers relief from the alternative minimum tax.

Absent congressional action, nearly 20 million more Americans will be forced to pay the AMT next year. This proposal adds 2 years of relief from the AMT, where the President could only find room for 1.

Congress faced many restrictions and tough choices in crafting this budget. And lawmakers' hands were tied due to years of fiscal mismanagement.

The budget resolution is far from perfect. It fails to provide permanent relief from the AMT for middle-class families and, while it restores much needed funds in critical areas, it does not fully fund critical programs. But it refocuses our priorities. And it takes important steps to restore fiscal responsibility.

Unlike the President's budget proposal, this budget will create a surplus in 2012 and is nearly balanced a year before that.

Change will take time. And there is no cure-all for the years of fiscal irresponsibility and misguided policies that we have seen.

As I said before, this budget is far from perfect. However, it initiates much needed change and I believe will put us back on the path from which the President and Republican Congress strayed.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to act in the best interest of Americans who have entrusted us with a great responsibility. I hope that they will join me today in meeting this responsibility by voting for the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Sessions to re-introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation protects the safety of consumers who wish to fill legitimate prescriptions over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies.

This legislation imposes basic, commonsense requirements on an industry that presents both promise and peril.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits an Internet pharmacy from dispensing or selling a controlled substance without an in-person examination by a physician.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operating in violation of the law, and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

The disclosure requirements contained in this bill will allow patients to differentiate between shady off-shore pharmacies and legitimate licensed ones. Under this legislation, pharmacies must clearly disclose: the name and address of the pharmacy. Contact information for the pharmacist-in-charge. A list of States in which the pharmacy is licensed to operate.

They must also clearly post a statement that they comply with the requirements in this legislation.

The bill states that pharmacies can dispense to patients only if they have a valid prescription from a practitioner who has performed an in- person examination. This requirement will ensure that doctors can verify the health status of a patient and ensure that the drug he or she will receive from the pharmacy is medically appropriate.

This legislation recognizes that in the case of an emergency, a patient may not always be able to see his or her typical physician. For that reason, it allows a doctor to designate a covering practitioner to write a valid prescription if he or she is not available.

Finally, this bill contains real penalties to hold accountable those who continue to operate pharmacies in violation of these requirements.

First, for Internet sales of controlled substances, the bill makes clear that such activities are subject to the current Federal laws against illegal distributions and the same penalties applicable to hand-to-hand sales.

Second, the bill increases the penalties for illegal distributions of controlled substances categorized by the DEA as Schedule III, IV and V substances, with new penalties if death or serious bodily injury results, and longer periods of supervised release available after convictions.

The bill also allows a State's Attorney General to file a Federal motion to stop these pharmacies from operating illegally, no matter where the entity is headquartered. Previously, this type of enforcement would require a filing in every state.

Prescription drug abuse is a growing front on the War on Drugs, with 15.1 million adults admitting to abuse of prescription drugs in a 2003 study. That's a 94 percent increase in the last decade.

Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that deaths from accidental drug overdoses nearly doubled from 1999 to 2004, increasing from 11,155 in 1999 to 19,838 in 2004. Accidental drug overdoses are now the Nation's second-leading cause of accidental death, behind automobile crashes.

The CDC attributed the rise in drug overdose deaths to a higher use of prescription painkillers and increasing numbers of overdoses of cocaine and prescription sedatives. These increases did not occur in our inner cities; instead, the increase was described as being fueled by prescription drug abuse in middle-class, rural America--with overdose death rates doubling in 23 States, mostly in the South and Midwest.

Ready access to controlled substances over the Internet is helping to fuel these addictions. A study conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found at least 344 websites offering controlled substances.

89 percent of these pharmacies do not require a prescription from a physician, accepting either an online consultation or no prescription at all.

38 percent of these pharmacies claim their drugs are shipping within the United States, putting them within the reach of U.S. law enforcement.

We also know that internet pharmacies fill a disproportionate number of prescriptions for controlled substances. According to data from the National Community Pharmacy Association (NCPA)-Pfizer Digest, controlled substances account for only 11 percent of the business at community ``brick and mortar'' pharmacies. 89 percent of their business consists of non-controlled prescription drugs. In contrast, approximately 95 percent of the business done by internet pharmacies is controlled substances.

To understand how many of these Internet pharmacy websites exist, just visit any Internet search engine. Type in the name of any controlled substance, like Vicodin, Oxycontin, codeine, or even anabolic steroids. Several websites will appear, offering to sell you these drugs without a prescription and without a medical examination. Some of these websites simply ask patients to send copies of medical records, with no verification of their validity. Patients use these pharmacies to obtain addictive drugs like Vicodin and Oxycontin. They can receive these dangerous drugs without a doctor performing a physical exam to ensure that an underlying health condition will not cause a dangerous side effect. Often, a credit card is all that is required.

Law enforcement officials are well aware of this growing problem but face many challenges in trying to find and prosecute rogue pharmacy operators. Last year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned at

that time how ``the purchase of . . . controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet is of great concern.'' He said that the Internet's wide accessibility and anonymity ``give drug abusers the ability to circumvent the law, as well as sound medical practice, a[s] they dispense potentially dangerous controlled pharmaceuticals,'' and said that, with ``no identifying . . . information on these websites, it is very difficult for law enforcement to track any of the individuals behind them.''

In January of this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales again appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The problem had only grown worse. He described the non-medicinal use of controlled substance prescription drugs as ``the fastest rising category of drug abuse in recent years.'' He noted how ``[r]ogue pharmacies operating illicitly through the Internet increasingly have become a source for the illegal supply of controlled substances,'' and offered to work with Congress to try to adopt additional enforcement tools that may be appropriate.

I believe that the bill I introduce today will address many of these problems that the Attorney General has identified.

At the same time, receiving medications from a legitimate, licensed Internet pharmacy is one of the new conveniences ushered in by the Internet age. This bill preserves the ability of well run pharmacies and well intentioned patients to access controlled substances by means of the Internet.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA. Ryan was an 18-year-old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001.

His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story is just one of many. Internet pharmacies are making it increasingly easy for teens like Ryan to access deadly prescription drugs. That is why I support this legislation. It creates sensible requirements for Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Sessions to re-introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation protects the safety of consumers who wish to fill legitimate prescriptions over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies.

This legislation imposes basic, commonsense requirements on an industry that presents both promise and peril.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits an Internet pharmacy from dispensing or selling a controlled substance without an in-person examination by a physician.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operating in violation of the law, and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

The disclosure requirements contained in this bill will allow patients to differentiate between shady off-shore pharmacies and legitimate licensed ones. Under this legislation, pharmacies must clearly disclose: the name and address of the pharmacy. Contact information for the pharmacist-in-charge. A list of States in which the pharmacy is licensed to operate.

They must also clearly post a statement that they comply with the requirements in this legislation.

The bill states that pharmacies can dispense to patients only if they have a valid prescription from a practitioner who has performed an in- person examination. This requirement will ensure that doctors can verify the health status of a patient and ensure that the drug he or she will receive from the pharmacy is medically appropriate.

This legislation recognizes that in the case of an emergency, a patient may not always be able to see his or her typical physician. For that reason, it allows a doctor to designate a covering practitioner to write a valid prescription if he or she is not available.

Finally, this bill contains real penalties to hold accountable those who continue to operate pharmacies in violation of these requirements.

First, for Internet sales of controlled substances, the bill makes clear that such activities are subject to the current Federal laws against illegal distributions and the same penalties applicable to hand-to-hand sales.

Second, the bill increases the penalties for illegal distributions of controlled substances categorized by the DEA as Schedule III, IV and V substances, with new penalties if death or serious bodily injury results, and longer periods of supervised release available after convictions.

The bill also allows a State's Attorney General to file a Federal motion to stop these pharmacies from operating illegally, no matter where the entity is headquartered. Previously, this type of enforcement would require a filing in every state.

Prescription drug abuse is a growing front on the War on Drugs, with 15.1 million adults admitting to abuse of prescription drugs in a 2003 study. That's a 94 percent increase in the last decade.

Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that deaths from accidental drug overdoses nearly doubled from 1999 to 2004, increasing from 11,155 in 1999 to 19,838 in 2004. Accidental drug overdoses are now the Nation's second-leading cause of accidental death, behind automobile crashes.

The CDC attributed the rise in drug overdose deaths to a higher use of prescription painkillers and increasing numbers of overdoses of cocaine and prescription sedatives. These increases did not occur in our inner cities; instead, the increase was described as being fueled by prescription drug abuse in middle-class, rural America--with overdose death rates doubling in 23 States, mostly in the South and Midwest.

Ready access to controlled substances over the Internet is helping to fuel these addictions. A study conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found at least 344 websites offering controlled substances.

89 percent of these pharmacies do not require a prescription from a physician, accepting either an online consultation or no prescription at all.

38 percent of these pharmacies claim their drugs are shipping within the United States, putting them within the reach of U.S. law enforcement.

We also know that internet pharmacies fill a disproportionate number of prescriptions for controlled substances. According to data from the National Community Pharmacy Association (NCPA)-Pfizer Digest, controlled substances account for only 11 percent of the business at community ``brick and mortar'' pharmacies. 89 percent of their business consists of non-controlled prescription drugs. In contrast, approximately 95 percent of the business done by internet pharmacies is controlled substances.

To understand how many of these Internet pharmacy websites exist, just visit any Internet search engine. Type in the name of any controlled substance, like Vicodin, Oxycontin, codeine, or even anabolic steroids. Several websites will appear, offering to sell you these drugs without a prescription and without a medical examination. Some of these websites simply ask patients to send copies of medical records, with no verification of their validity. Patients use these pharmacies to obtain addictive drugs like Vicodin and Oxycontin. They can receive these dangerous drugs without a doctor performing a physical exam to ensure that an underlying health condition will not cause a dangerous side effect. Often, a credit card is all that is required.

Law enforcement officials are well aware of this growing problem but face many challenges in trying to find and prosecute rogue pharmacy operators. Last year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned at

that time how ``the purchase of . . . controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet is of great concern.'' He said that the Internet's wide accessibility and anonymity ``give drug abusers the ability to circumvent the law, as well as sound medical practice, a[s] they dispense potentially dangerous controlled pharmaceuticals,'' and said that, with ``no identifying . . . information on these websites, it is very difficult for law enforcement to track any of the individuals behind them.''

In January of this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales again appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The problem had only grown worse. He described the non-medicinal use of controlled substance prescription drugs as ``the fastest rising category of drug abuse in recent years.'' He noted how ``[r]ogue pharmacies operating illicitly through the Internet increasingly have become a source for the illegal supply of controlled substances,'' and offered to work with Congress to try to adopt additional enforcement tools that may be appropriate.

I believe that the bill I introduce today will address many of these problems that the Attorney General has identified.

At the same time, receiving medications from a legitimate, licensed Internet pharmacy is one of the new conveniences ushered in by the Internet age. This bill preserves the ability of well run pharmacies and well intentioned patients to access controlled substances by means of the Internet.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA. Ryan was an 18-year-old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001.

His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story is just one of many. Internet pharmacies are making it increasingly easy for teens like Ryan to access deadly prescription drugs. That is why I support this legislation. It creates sensible requirements for Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

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

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. There is no question that we must reform our entitlement programs and change the way our Nation's finances are managed.

With this in mind, I support the premise behind this amendment: the Social Security trust fund should not be used to help reduce the Federal budget deficit.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are being taken from Social Security each year just to help pay our bills. Last year, this figure approached $200 billion.

However, this amendment has a fatal flaw. It leaves the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the option of ``pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits.''

In my view, this is unacceptable.

This body has already closed the door on the President's ill- conceived plan for private Social Security accounts.

The opposition to privatization is well-known:

Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program. Transition costs alone, over the first 20 years, would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion.

Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40 percent.

Half of all American workers today have no pension or retirement plan from their employers. That means Social Security is their only source of income.

It is critical that we protect this safety net.

We must hold the line on spending, but this has to be done in conjunction with a more responsible approach to tax policy.

The President's tax cuts have already cost more than $1 trillion and those enacted will be more than $3 trillion over the next decade.

When you combine the cost of the tax cuts with spending for the military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terror--currently totaling $510 billion--the inevitable result is that our Federal budget is squeezed, while our crushing debt grows.

As we debate this budget resolution, I urge my colleagues to be mindful of the long-term impact of our spending decisions.

The looming crisis with our entitlement programs is clear. We must stop raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay our bills. But I cannot support this particular amendment which opens the door to privatizing Social Security.

I am firmly committed to opposing any Social Security reform proposals which leave the possibility of private accounts on the table. And this amendment would do just that. So I must voice my opposition, and I ask that my colleagues join me in rejecting this proposal.

Mr. President, thank you. And I thank the chairman of the committee as well.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 214. As we all know, that is a bill to reinstate the Senate's role in the confirmation process of U.S. attorneys. I thank both Senators Leahy and Specter for supporting this bill. I wish to say right upfront I believe we should pass a clean bill today. I have had the privilege of working with both Senators Kyl and Sessions. I understand their amendments, but essentially what I have been trying to do is put the law back to the way it was before the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

Now, at that time--March of last year--unbeknownst to Democratic and Republican Senators a provision was included in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that essentially allows the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for an indefinite period of time without Senate confirmation.

Surprisingly, less than 1 year after receiving this new authority, serious allegations and abuse of the process have come to light. We now know that at least eight U.S. attorneys were forced from office, and that despite shifting rationales for why, it has become clear that politics has played a considerable role.

We know that six of the U.S. attorneys who were fired were involved with public corruption cases. Unfortunately, it is now clear that the bigger issue is what we do not know. Despite last night's production of some 3,000 pages related to the firing process, we are now faced with a growing list of unanswered questions, including:

What was the White House's role in these decisions?

In one e-mail produced last night, there is a conversation about involving the President in the process, and asking who decides what his level of involvement should be. But there are no subsequent documents showing the answers. Obviously, the question is: Who did decide and what was his role?

Who made these determinations about who to fire, and who was involved in the loyalty evaluation? Again, the documents produced last night do not answer this question, and we are still faced with several lists of targeted U.S. attorneys that beg the question: Who else was a target and what happened?

We also need to know what role, if any, did open public corruption cases play in determining who would be fired? What was the Attorney General's role in the process? Was the change to the law in March of 2006 done in order to facilitate the wholesale replacement of all or a large number of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation?

While I believe the Senate and the House will exercise our due diligence investigating these questions, we have an opportunity right now to ensure this politicization of U.S. attorneys does not happen again.

The bill before the Senate would return the law to what it was before the change that was made in March of 2006. It would still give the Attorney General the authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys, but it would limit that authority to 120 days. If after that time, the President had not nominated a new U.S. attorney or the Senate had not confirmed a nominee, then the district courts would appoint an interim U.S. attorney. This is the process that was developed under the Reagan administration and it worked from 1986 to 2006. That is 20 years. It worked with virtually no problems for 20 years.

I think it is important we reinstate these important checks and balances and ensure that Senate confirmation is required. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill and to vote against all amendments.

I think it is necessary we pass this bill today, and I hope it is by a very substantial margin. I am so distressed at the politicization of the Department of Justice. I am so distressed that there is not an arm's length between politics and the law today in this country. I believe it is a very serious situation. I believe strongly that once the U.S. attorney takes that oath of office, they must be independent, objective, and follow facts wherever they lead them in the pursuit of justice. I believe that is what both political parties want and I believe that is what the American people want. There is only one way we are going to get back there with U.S. attorneys, and that is by simply returning the law to what it was before.

I also wish to point out the administration's interest in saying this is a political appointment has a limit, and I have expressed what that limit is. The only way we are going to effect the necessary changes is to pass this law this morning, and I very much hope it will be passed and passed without amendment.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Joseph Gabra and his wife, Sharon Kamel, Egyptian nationals currently living with their children in Camarillo, CA.

Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel entered the United States legally on November 1, 1998, on tourist visas. They immediately filed for political asylum based on religious persecution.

The couple fled Egypt because they had been targeted for their active involvement in the Coptic Christian Church in Egypt. Mr. Gabra was repeatedly jailed by Egyptian authorities because of his work for the church. In addition, Ms. Kamel's cousin was murdered and her brother's business was fire-bombed.

When Ms. Kamel became pregnant with their first child, the family was warned by a member of the Muslim brotherhood that if they did not raise their child as a Muslim, the child would be kidnapped and taken from them.

Frightened by these threats, the young family sought refuge in the United States. Unfortunately, when they sought asylum here, Mr. Gabra, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating his fear of persecution to the immigration judge.

The judge denied their petition, telling the family that he did not see why they could not just move to another city in Egypt to avoid the abuse they were suffering. Since the time that they were denied asylum, Ms. Kamel's brother, who lived in the same town and suffered similar abuse, was granted asylum.

I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure immense and unfair hardship.

First, in the nine years that Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have lived here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels. They came to the United States on a lawful visa and immediately notified authorities of their intent to seek asylum here. They have played by the rules and followed our laws.

In addition, during those nine years, the couple has had four U.S. citizen children who do not speak Arabic and are unfamiliar with Egyptian culture. If the family is deported, the children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life.

Jessica, 8, is the Gabra's oldest child, and in the Gifted and Talented Education program in Ventura County. Rebecca, age 7, and Rafael, age 6, are old enough to understand that they would be leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. Veronica, the Gabra's youngest child, is just 18 months old.

More troubling is the very real possibility that if sent to Egypt, these four American children would suffer discrimination and persecution because of their religion, just as the rest of their family reports.

Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have made a positive life for themselves and their family in the United States. Both have earned college degrees in Egypt and once in the United States, Mr. Gabra passed the Certified Public Accountant Examination on August 4, 2003. Since arriving here, Mr. Gabra has consistently worked to support his family.

The positive impact they have made on their community is highlighted by the fact that I received a letter of support on their behalf signed by 160 members of their church and community. From everything I have learned about the family, we can expect that they will continue to contribute to their community in productive ways.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

In addition, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the Camarillo community be printed in the Record.