Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Snowe that will provide our Nation's migrant agricultural and forest workers with a safe ride to work. The Farm and Forestry Worker Transportation Safety Act would require a designated seat and seatbelt for each person riding in a vehicle used to transport these workers.

Today, many migrant workers travel to their jobs in dangerous and unsafe conditions. It is not uncommon for these workers to ride in overcrowded vans and trucks while sitting on benches and buckets with no access to seatbelts.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 78 agricultural workers lost their lives and 440 were injured in transportation accidents in 2004.

I would like to take a moment to share with you just a few of the accidents that have resulted from the lack of adequate safety regulations for these workers:

In December of 2005, two Guatemalan forest workers were killed when their vehicle crashed driving off icy roads in Washington. Five Guatemalan forest workers were killed in the same manner the previous year.

In June of 2004, 2 migrant workers were killed in Port St. Lucie, FL, when their overcrowded van carrying 11 people rolled over on Interstate 95. Two months later, 9 citrus workers were killed in Fort Pierce when their 15-passenger van rolled over and ejected all 19 passengers.

In September 2002, 14 forestry workers were killed when their van transporting them to work toppled off a bridge in Maine.

In August 1999, 13 tomato field workers were killed when their van slammed into a tractor-trailer in Fresno County, CA. Most of the victims were riding on three benches in the back of the van.

As you can see, this issue does not just affect my home State of California. It is a problem that requires national attention. Congress needs to take action to ensure these workers safe travel to and from their jobs. My bill would seek to provide these workers with a designated seat and operating seatbelt.

This legislation would also address the issue of converted vehicles. The bill would direct the Department of Transportation to develop interim seat and seatbelt safety standards for vehicles that have been converted for the purpose of transporting migrant workers. Owners and operators of these vehicles would have 7 years to make the necessary improvements so that their vehicles would meet the same safety standards as new vehicles.

I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for the safety of our Nation's migrant workforce.

Mr. President, I request that the text of this legislation appear immediately following this statement in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Snowe that will provide our Nation's migrant agricultural and forest workers with a safe ride to work. The Farm and Forestry Worker Transportation Safety Act would require a designated seat and seatbelt for each person riding in a vehicle used to transport these workers.

Today, many migrant workers travel to their jobs in dangerous and unsafe conditions. It is not uncommon for these workers to ride in overcrowded vans and trucks while sitting on benches and buckets with no access to seatbelts.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 78 agricultural workers lost their lives and 440 were injured in transportation accidents in 2004.

I would like to take a moment to share with you just a few of the accidents that have resulted from the lack of adequate safety regulations for these workers:

In December of 2005, two Guatemalan forest workers were killed when their vehicle crashed driving off icy roads in Washington. Five Guatemalan forest workers were killed in the same manner the previous year.

In June of 2004, 2 migrant workers were killed in Port St. Lucie, FL, when their overcrowded van carrying 11 people rolled over on Interstate 95. Two months later, 9 citrus workers were killed in Fort Pierce when their 15-passenger van rolled over and ejected all 19 passengers.

In September 2002, 14 forestry workers were killed when their van transporting them to work toppled off a bridge in Maine.

In August 1999, 13 tomato field workers were killed when their van slammed into a tractor-trailer in Fresno County, CA. Most of the victims were riding on three benches in the back of the van.

As you can see, this issue does not just affect my home State of California. It is a problem that requires national attention. Congress needs to take action to ensure these workers safe travel to and from their jobs. My bill would seek to provide these workers with a designated seat and operating seatbelt.

This legislation would also address the issue of converted vehicles. The bill would direct the Department of Transportation to develop interim seat and seatbelt safety standards for vehicles that have been converted for the purpose of transporting migrant workers. Owners and operators of these vehicles would have 7 years to make the necessary improvements so that their vehicles would meet the same safety standards as new vehicles.

I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for the safety of our Nation's migrant workforce.

Mr. President, I request that the text of this legislation appear immediately following this statement in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. In just a short hour or so, the Senate will finally vote on passage of this important stem cell act. This is a long time coming.

I believe and hope that we are going to have a very strong vote in favor of this critical scientific research. I also hope that President Bush will reverse his earlier veto threat and sign this bill that holds such promise for so many Americans suffering from catastrophic illness.

This issue, and this debate, is really about hope. It is about giving hope of a scientific breakthrough to millions of Americans suffering from chronic, debilitating, and devastating disease.

We can't stand here on the Senate floor and pretend that we know which scientific advances will cure diabetes, ALS, or cancer. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have done just that. They have insisted that adult stem cells and cord blood cells are being successfully used to treat at least 65 illnesses. They argue that there is no reason to move forward with this bill, no reason to make new lines of stem cells available. However, adult stem cells present serious limitations and embryonic stem cell research offers unique promise.

Embryonic cells derived from embryos are pluripotent, meaning they can become any type of cell. Adult stem cells cannot, and, therefore, their application is limited. These embryonic cells are easy to grow, isolate, and study. Adult stem cells are harder to grow in a lab. These embryonic cells can divide. They can renew themselves for long periods. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, exist only in small amounts. All these properties make these stem cells an excellent target for scientific exploration.

Now, there have been heartrending stories of people suffering from diseases such as leukemia and other blood disorders who experience relief from adult stem cells or cord blood cells, and that is just great. This progress is encouraging and it should move forward. But these advances in treatments have not addressed the needs of patients suffering from other diseases.

In juvenile diabetes, for example, scientists have discovered that adult stem cells in the pancreas do not play an effective role in insulin production. To cure the disease, doctors will need insulin- producing cells to inject into their diabetic patients. This is done now on a limited basis, but there aren't enough donor cells available. Stem cells could change this. They could provide an unlimited amount of cells that are compatible with the patient, making anti-rejection drugs simply unnecessary. Of course, if we don't let our scientists try, we will never know.

Dr. Douglas Kerr of Johns Hopkins--and I used this yesterday on the floor--headed a team that used embryonic stem cells to treat 15 rats that had been paralyzed by an aggressive infection that had destroyed their cord nerve cells. Eleven of these rats experienced significant recovery. They regained enough strength to bear weight and take steps on their previously paralyzed hind quarters.

A few years ago, no one thought this could be done. Dr. Kerr explains that this is, in essence, a cookbook recipe to restore lost nerve function, and that this procedure could some day be used to repair damage from ALS, multiple sclerosis, or spinal cord injuries.

He says:

With small adjustments keyed to differences in nervous

system targets, the approach may also apply to patients with

Parkinson's or Huntington's disease.

The NIH Director, Dr. Zerhouni, called this a remarkable advance that can help us understand how stem cells can begin to fulfill their great promise. What an advance this would be. Can you imagine if you could regenerate the spinal cord, once again, and if paraplegics and quadriplegics could again function? That is what this bright frontier is all about. That is what is so very important.

All of this takes time. Scientists first isolated human embryonic stem cells only 8 years ago, and in that time they have learned a substantial amount about how these cells work and how they could one day be used in treatment.

But there is also a lot we don't know. Some have suggested because there have been no miraculous cures in this 8-year period, there will never be useful treatments that come from this technology. But none of the great feats of scientific inquiry have been simple. That is for sure. Scientific progress takes time and investment. Our researchers today have made discoveries, many in mice, that could prove just as revolutionary as the introduction of penicillin in the 1940s. These preliminary discoveries will amount to nothing unless researchers have access to Federal funding and viable stem cell lines to move forward.

In the last 2 days we have heard a great deal about the hope that the passage of Castle-DeGette would bring to patients and their families.

I would like to say a final word about hope. I simply cannot believe that President Bush would select this legislation as his first veto as President of the United States. I know that he has issued a veto threat, but think about it. Think about the millions of people. Think about the fact that if you are really pro-life, these embryos--which will never become human life, which are discarded, which will not be used, which are the product of in vitro fertilization--these embryos are never going to be babies, as the opposition would have us believe. Think of the lives that these embryos might save some day. People paralyzed, people with juvenile diabetes, young people with Parkinson's disease who can't move and who have trouble speaking--think about what this can mean in terms of being for life.

That is why I think if the President thinks about this, we all have the hope on this side of the question that he will not veto this legislation.

The President himself recognized the promise of stem cell research back in 2001 when he attempted to find a middle ground. But 5 years later, it is apparent, there is no middle ground. We need embryonic stem cell research, and this is the way to do it. I am hopeful that this body will vote aye.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Passage of this legislation will finally allow scientists to fully pursue the promise of stem cell research. It will offer hope to millions of our people. Mr. President, we have waited a long time for this day. Earlier, Senator Harkin spoke to the fact that it was in 1998 when he and Senator Specter introduced the first bill dealing with stem cell research. I recall that year I introduced one of the first bills dealing with ethical standards surrounding stem cell research. So it has been 8 years.

Now, finally, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved bipartisan legislation. In the intervening time, we have all heard from patients, survivors, and scientists who are desperate to pursue this research that one day could lead to treatments and cures for diabetes, cancer and, yes, even spinal cord injury. Forty Nobel laureates have weighed in with their support, as did former First Lady Nancy Reagan.

While we were waiting, we lost Christopher and Dana Reeve, tireless advocates of stem cell research, and an inspiration for all of us. Millions more American families experienced firsthand the devastation wrought by catastrophic illnesses.

My colleagues and I, Senators Specter, Harkin, Kennedy, Hatch, and Smith, worked tirelessly to bring this to a vote. We pushed privately, we wrote letters, we gave speeches, and we held press conferences to highlight the plight of patients who are living with illnesses day in and day out.

Finally, after all of this pleading and delay, the Senate is acting.

I thank my colleagues for their longstanding leadership on this issue, and I am also very grateful to the majority leader, Senator Frist, for his support for stem cell research and his work with his caucus to reach this agreement that has made this debate possible.

For all of the controversy that it is generating, the Castle-DeGette Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is remarkably simple. It reverses the failed policy announced by President Bush in 2001 when he restricted Federal funding to stem cell lines already in existence.

At the time, the President himself recognized the great promise of stem cell research. He sought to find middle ground, announcing a policy that provided Federal funding for more than 60 preexisting genetically diverse stem cell lines. This was morally acceptable, he said, because the life-or-death decision for these stem cell lines had already been made.

Unfortunately, the policy did not work out as promised. These available lines are all contaminated with mouse feeder cells and, therefore, are useless for human research purposes. They don't have the diverse genetic makeup that may be necessary to find cures to benefit all Americans. Researchers cannot use them to examine rare and deadly genetic diseases.

Castle-DeGette 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 that this bill will lead us down a slippery slope, the parameters created by the bill are actually numerous and they are very strict:

The embryos must be left over following fertility treatment.

It must be clear that the embryos will be discarded.

The people donating the embryos must provide written consent.

These donors may not be compensated for their donation.

These restrictions mean that over 400,000 embryos could become available, all while ensuring that researchers meet the highest of ethical standards.

Let us be clear. We are talking about embryos that will be destroyed whether or not this bill becomes law. It is an indisputable fact that these embryos have no future.

We should not confuse the research permitted under this bill with the activities described under the two other bills currently before us. I am going to support these bills. Yet it is important to realize that their passage will do nothing to change the status quo.

The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act bans activities that occur in horror movies, not in our research labs. We should not allow these farfetched and frightening techniques, which no respected scientist anywhere endorses, to distract from the plight of millions of Americans seeking cures from devastating diseases.

This debate is also not about the myriad research approaches envisioned in the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, as introduced by my colleagues, Senators Specter and Santorum. This research can already be funded with Federal dollars. Respected scientists are examining a variety of ways to create these multipurpose cells and, of course, this work should continue.

We simply don't know which research approaches will prove fruitful and which will fail. Alternative techniques may lead eventually to cures for serious afflictions, or they may not. Scientists, not Senators, should determine what research to pursue.

Supporting only the Specter-Santorum alternative is not an endorsement of stem cell research. It is an affirmation of a policy that is leaving American researchers far behind in one of the most important fields of scientific discovery, and I want to spend a moment on that.

Because of President Bush's restrictions, some of our best and brightest scientists are leaving the United States to work overseas in countries that have embraced the promise of comprehensive stem cell research. This brain drain has hit my State particularly hard. Let me give you a few examples.

Roger Peterson, a renowned scientist, left the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco in 2001, citing the unfriendly research climate in the United States. He is now conducting human stem cell research at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. He and his UK team are exploring the biology behind pluripotent, or multipurpose stem cells, and are looking for ways to use them for treatment. He would not have had Federal funding to do this work in the United States, so he left.

Dr. Judith Swain, from the University of California San Diego, will leave for Singapore in September, where she will work at Singapore's state-funded research institute called Biopolis. Her husband, Dr. Edward Holmes, also of the University of California at San Diego, is a ranking official in California's stem cell agency. He is also leaving for Singapore.

NIH researchers, Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, turned down offers to join Stanford University's stem cell department. They, too, are moving to Singapore. Copeland has said that he selected Singapore because of its ``unfettered support of human embryonic stem cell research.''

These are but a few examples of the costs of this President's policy.

Researchers are attracted by the federal funding provided in at least 10 other nations--Germany, Finland, France, Sweden, United Kingdom, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, China, and Australia. These investments total hundreds of millions of dollars that are already producing tangible progress.

Sweden funds, with federal funds, 400 researchers today. South Korea and China are each funding an additional 300. Australia has pledged $90 million through 2011. This investment has already paid off, as Australian researchers have discovered a way to manipulate stem cells into lung cells. This technology could one day be used to treat cystic fibrosis.

Scientists from around the world have come to Singapore's Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology. There, they are using stem cells to produce artificial kidneys. This could one day free people from the burden of kidney dialysis.

Researchers in other countries now author an increasing proportion of stem cell papers than those in the United States.

Foreign researchers have derived almost three-quarters of the world's new

stem cell lines, moving quickly ahead of our country, the United States.

Other nations have the money, the researchers, the facilities, and the new stem cell lines they need to move forward. They are learning more about stem cells every day and laying the foundation for groundbreaking cures.

American scientists, on the other hand, cannot obtain Federal funding to do this work. These Federal funding restrictions have a real world impact on ongoing research.

American scientists are making great strides with work on mouse stem cells. They are showing what could be possible if there is Federal funding to extend this work into humans.

Researchers at Stanford University have recently turned cells derived from mouse embryos into one of the building blocks of blood vessels. This advance means they may eventually be able to grow entirely new blood vessels, offering great promise to patients suffering from heart disease. But without Federal funds, it is unlikely they can get the stem cell lines to be able to do the human research.

A research team at Johns Hopkins used cells from mouse embryos to regenerate nerves in paralyzed rats. After treatment, many of the rats regained enough strength to walk and bear weight on their previously paralyzed hind legs.

Mr. President, do you know what this means? This means it might--just might--be possible to do something science said could never be done, and that is to regenerate a severed spinal column, to regenerate the nerves which scientists always thought never again could be regenerated.

We would never have thought discoveries such as this were possible even a few years ago. So think of what it means for every paraplegic or quadriplegic to know that there is hope out there, that the first rat tests have shown it works?

The next step is the human stem cell lines, to be able to carry out that research on humans, and that is exactly what we are talking about today.

Scientists now must work to translate these promising advances into cures for humans. Such a feat will almost certainly require access to viable lines of human stem cells, and unless we pass Castle-DeGette and unless the President signs Castle-DeGette, these lines will not be available in the United States to regenerate a severed spinal column, to regenerate blood vessels, or to do anything else.

Mike Armstrong, an old friend and chairman of the Johns Hopkins board of trustees, made this very point in a letter he wrote stating news of this advance. Here is what he said:

Treatments not only for paralysis, but for ALS, for

multiple sclerosis, and similar diseases of the brain now

seem possible. The exact timeframe is impossible to predict,

but it will almost certainly depend on the availability of

Federal funding.

It will depend on the availability of Federal funding, and that is what is at stake in this debate. He goes on to say:

The level of funding that will ultimately be required to

advance this field of science to human trials, however,

suggests that Federal funding will be necessary. Yet, under

current Federal policy, the only stem cell lines eligible for

Federal funding were created using mouse feeder cells and

could never be used in clinical trials with humans.

Could never be used in clinical trials for humans.

I am particularly proud of the commitment demonstrated by California scientists and activists in the face of these restrictions. In 2004, California voters approved a proposition, proposition 71. That proposition created and funded the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. It funded it with $3 billion of taxpayers' dollars over 10 years, and it supported promising research conducted in my State. This work will be done with careful ethical oversight. It also bans human reproductive cloning, something we all agree is immoral and unethical.

This investment, hopefully, once it gets past the court tests, will make California a leader in this industry and in finding cures that will change the lives of suffering patients.

Other States are making similar investments. Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and others are considering after 5 years of delay because of the restriction on Federal funding--they are taking steps to move this important work forward on a State basis. But--and here is the but--a patchwork, State-by-State approach is no way to run science policy. States have many other responsibilities, such as funding education, building infrastructure, and so on, and we shouldn't expect them to solely carry the burden of funding one of the most promising fields of science.

There is a reason we invest so much in the National Institutes of Health and the biomedical research they conduct. The NIH can then set national standards and ensure that research is not being duplicated and to see that it is carried out under ethical standards. This is something everyone should want. You should want that Federal oversight of NIH over all research funding that is funded with Federal dollars.

It is also important to remember that this debate is about real people whose lives are impacted by illness every single day, day in, day out. I have heard from so many Californians who have been personally impacted by diseases that could one day be cured with stem cell research. I want to tell a few of those stories.

Leslie Bishop Franco from Oakland, CA, wrote to me to say she supports stem cell research because her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at the age of 57. Her mother quickly became unable to work and then unable to care for herself. Leslie and her sisters and brothers cared not only for their own young children but also for their mother. This is something many families know all too well.

Leslie writes that even if stem cell research does not ``lead to a cure for Alzheimer's as it has the potential in other diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes, it will provide crucial insights into the disease and the usefulness of new drugs.''

Mark Siegel from Los Angeles has suffered from Parkinson's for 8 years. For over half the time he has been ill, the President's policies have slowed stem cell research. Mark was diagnosed when he was 36 years old. One of my sons-in-law was just diagnosed, and he is 44 years old.

What happens is Parkinson's slowly erodes one's motor control. Mark Siegel's condition had forced him to change jobs, and he is afraid we are losing the race against time to find a cure and save his life.

Jennifer Heumann from Huntington Beach, CA, has been living with juvenile diabetes since she was 2 years old, and she is now 16. She says diabetes hasn't stopped her from playing varsity tennis or going to high school dances, but she knows her disease can cause serious complications. Without a cure, she has a 65-percent chance of dying from heart disease or stroke and a 60-percent chance of developing nervous system damage.

Jennifer writes:

These are the cold, hard facts, but I am not content to

admit they are my destiny. I believe that a cure is in sight,

and that embryonic stem cell research may be the key to

finding this cure. If this is the case, how can we justify

passing up this opportunity?

We all should ask that question. This impressive young woman is hard to argue with. She makes a very eloquent point, and until we know what kinds of research could lead to cures for these catastrophic diseases, we should support scientists and we should push ahead every possible lead.

These patients and family members represent only a few of the tens of thousands of Californians I have heard from who support stem cell research. As a matter of fact, by the latest poll, 72 percent of Americans support stem cell research.

We don't want to spread false hope. There is still much we don't understand about stem cells. Some of the cures may never come to fruition, but unless we allow our scientists to continue their work, we will never, ever know. How can any of us tell a patient suffering from juvenile diabetes, a cancer victim, or a young man with heart disease, that the Senate decided not to allow researchers to pursue all the scientific leads that may one day offer them a cure? How can we say that? How can we say we know better? How can we say because of a small proportion of people's beliefs we are going to stop all Federal research in the United States of America?

Last week, Karl Rove declared that the President is emphatic about vetoing this legislation. I hope not. The President himself acknowledged the great promise of stem cells back in 2001, and with the health of millions of Americans at stake, it is my hope that if and when this bill tomorrow afternoon passes the Senate and if and when

it goes to the President of the United States, he will reconsider his veto threat. Too many lives depend upon the advances which may well be possible.

Either you are for stem cell research or you are not. It is that simple. True support for stem cells means lifting the restrictions from hampering some of the most promising research, and only Castle-DeGette, only H.R. 810 will do that. No matter what the President decides on other legislation we are considering today, rejecting H.R. 810 is a rejection of science. It is a rejection of the hopes of millions of patients. This vote and the President's reaction to it should not be about assuaging a small but vocal minority with views far from the mainstream of 72 percent of the American people. Patients and their families deserve more than the President's first veto. How would you like it if you were President of the United States and the first veto of your political career were a veto of the one thing that offers hope for millions of Americans suffering from catastrophic disease? The one thing out there.

I want to assure these patients that my colleagues and I will not stop fighting for this. We will continue to push in every way possible. Patients suffering from these catastrophic illnesses have already waited too long. American scientists have already fallen behind their international counterparts, and the time has come to finally pass Castle-DeGette on a sweeping bipartisan basis, just as the House of Representatives did 13 months ago.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Snowe to introduce legislation to strengthen our international HIV prevention efforts for youth and empower the people on the ground who are fighting this disease to design the most effective and appropriate HIV prevention program.

Our legislation does three things. First, it expresses the sense of the Senate that sexually active youth who live in a country where HIV infection is spreading through the general population should be considered at high risk of contracting HIV and provided with information on the complete range of tools to prevent the spread of

We can't hear, Mr. President.

Is this the second-degree amendment?

Mr. President. I rise today to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Murkowski, chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in introducing legislation to provide new authority and streamlined review criteria for the Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI Water Recycling Program.

I first want to thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership in this area. I deeply appreciate her willingness to work with me on this issue.

I also want to thank my California colleague and friend, Representative Grace Napolitano, ranking member on the Water and Power Subcommittee, who is introducing identical companion legislation in the House of Representatives today.

This legislation is an outgrowth of subcommittee oversight hearings last February and is the product of more than 2 years of discussion, evaluation, and consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation as well as numerous water agencies and communities.

Today, the West faces two daunting challenges simultaneously. The first is drought and the impacts of continued climate gyration--wild swings in previously established weather patterns. The second is the unprecedented growth throughout California and the Western States. Population continues to not just grow but surge throughout this region.

The title XVI, Water Recycling Program enables water users in the West to stretch existing supplies through the application of reclamation, reuse, recycling and desalination technologies.

Title XVI was initially authorized in 1992, following a severe multiyear drought in California and other Western States. A drought of equal severity reduced the mighty Colorado River to record lows only a few years ago. We must find ways to expand our water supplies, and do so without generating regional or environmental conflict. Reusing our existing supplies and stretching those supplies is a significant part of the solution. The title XVI program provides the authority and framework to accomplish these water resource development objectives to meet the needs of our cities and urban areas, our farms and ranches and our diverse environment.

This legislation clarifies and makes permanent the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI water reuse/ reclamation/recycling grant authority for the development of new sources of water. In so doing, this proposed legislation will help State and local governments and water departments and agencies develop new water and reliable water supplies.

The bill amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, 1992, to provide new standards and procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects by the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation. Additionally, the legislation sets forth specific criteria to assist Congress in the evaluation and selection of projects for Federal funding.

In the recent past, the Bureau of Reclamation was not able to review and report on proposed projects in a timely fashion. This legislation establishes firm deadlines, a clear process, and very specific criteria by which project reviews are to be conducted.

This program, unlike traditional Bureau of Reclamation project funding, provides a grant, not to exceed 20 percent of the capital costs or $20 million making this the most leveraged and most cost- shared Federal water resources program. In setting the 20 percent cap, this legislation reduces the overall percentage Federal participation to 20 percent from the 1992 standard of 25 percent to enable more projects to receive Federal cost-share support.

Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act is designed to accomplish one major objective--development of new water supplies responsibly--and in a timely manner. From a California perspective, this legislation compliments and is fully consistent with the recently published California Water Plan Update 2005--published in 2006--by California Department of Water Resources and the 2002 State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, Water Recycling 2030. Both reports conclude that a significant portion of new water to be developed in California will come from water recycling.

Throughout the Nation's more than 200-year history, water conflicts in the West have ``erupted'' periodically. This program is designed to reduce conflict through sound planning, improved management, expanding existing supplies, leveraged financing and meaningful partnerships.

The Subcommittee on Water and Power will hold a hearing on this proposed legislation later this month. At that time, the subcommittee will also hear testimony on three proposed projects, one each in Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. I have carefully reviewed these projects. They are designed to produce approximately 300,000 acre-feet of new water annually. These projects simultaneously reduce pressure on the Bay Delta--and other Federal and State water users dependent on the water from the delta--as well as the Colorado River. They will help drought-proof their water service areas.

Not too long ago, in a speech delivered at a WateReuse Association conference, John Keys, the recently retired Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, called recycled water The Last River to Tap. Commissioner Keys was right.

I would like to provide some additional detail on the legislation. The legislation provides new authority for the Secretary of the Interior to review non-Federal water reclamation and reuse project proposals, pursuant to new standards and procedures for such review.

New standards would include providing sufficient evidence to the Secretary of Interior that the project: (1) is technically viable and (2) has a financially capable project sponsor. The Secretary would have 180 days to submit to Congress: (1) a statement and explanation of the project's technical and financial viability, and (2) a recommendation on whether the project should be authorized for construction based on several specific factors. Factors to be considered would range from items related to project costs and benefits, to whether the project would help serve an identified Federal interest. The bill also includes transition procedures.

This program is vital to the West's future. I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski and my colleagues on the Energy Committee. I want to also thank Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and the committee's ranking member, Senator Jeff Bingaman for their support and assistance in the preparation of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2006. The act would authorize an innovative program to protect the environment while meeting the future water needs of urban and agricultural water users in the North Bay region of California for years to come.

As regulations continue to tighten restrictions on wastewater discharges into the San Francisco Bay, communities are faced with major financial challenges as they determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater. At the same time, agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing serious water shortages resulting from a serious overdraft of groundwater. The North Bay Water Reuse Program will solve both problems together.

When completed, the North Bay Water Reuse Program will provide for

the collection and conveyance of treated urban wastewater to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery.

In the off-season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will be used to increase surface water flows for restoration of wetland habitat in the former Cargill Salt Ponds.

This reclaimed water that would be applied productively to vineyards, fields and wetlands is now being discharged as treated wastewater into the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The North Bay Water Reuse Program will benefit the ecosystem of the bay by providing a cost-effective, environmentally sound alternative for the disposal of urban wastewater.

The legislation I am introducing today allows for the Federal participation of the first phase of this long-term regional project. This cost-shared water reclamation and reuse program is the first of its kind in Northern California, and the first to provide water primarily for agricultural and environmental uses. It is supported by the local governments in three counties--Napa, Sonoma and Marin--that have joined together to undertake the project. Agricultural organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the Napa Vintners Association, and the North Bay Agriculture Alliance, support the program. And environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute, likewise endorse the program.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program brings together stakeholders that are usually at odds with one another and provides an ideal solution to guarantee water to the environment and agricultural producers, and simultaneously providing regulatory relief to wastewater agencies.

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

Mr. President. I rise today to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Murkowski, chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in introducing legislation to provide new authority and streamlined review criteria for the Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI Water Recycling Program.

I first want to thank Senator Murkowski for her leadership in this area. I deeply appreciate her willingness to work with me on this issue.

I also want to thank my California colleague and friend, Representative Grace Napolitano, ranking member on the Water and Power Subcommittee, who is introducing identical companion legislation in the House of Representatives today.

This legislation is an outgrowth of subcommittee oversight hearings last February and is the product of more than 2 years of discussion, evaluation, and consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation as well as numerous water agencies and communities.

Today, the West faces two daunting challenges simultaneously. The first is drought and the impacts of continued climate gyration--wild swings in previously established weather patterns. The second is the unprecedented growth throughout California and the Western States. Population continues to not just grow but surge throughout this region.

The title XVI, Water Recycling Program enables water users in the West to stretch existing supplies through the application of reclamation, reuse, recycling and desalination technologies.

Title XVI was initially authorized in 1992, following a severe multiyear drought in California and other Western States. A drought of equal severity reduced the mighty Colorado River to record lows only a few years ago. We must find ways to expand our water supplies, and do so without generating regional or environmental conflict. Reusing our existing supplies and stretching those supplies is a significant part of the solution. The title XVI program provides the authority and framework to accomplish these water resource development objectives to meet the needs of our cities and urban areas, our farms and ranches and our diverse environment.

This legislation clarifies and makes permanent the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI water reuse/ reclamation/recycling grant authority for the development of new sources of water. In so doing, this proposed legislation will help State and local governments and water departments and agencies develop new water and reliable water supplies.

The bill amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, 1992, to provide new standards and procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects by the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation. Additionally, the legislation sets forth specific criteria to assist Congress in the evaluation and selection of projects for Federal funding.

In the recent past, the Bureau of Reclamation was not able to review and report on proposed projects in a timely fashion. This legislation establishes firm deadlines, a clear process, and very specific criteria by which project reviews are to be conducted.

This program, unlike traditional Bureau of Reclamation project funding, provides a grant, not to exceed 20 percent of the capital costs or $20 million making this the most leveraged and most cost- shared Federal water resources program. In setting the 20 percent cap, this legislation reduces the overall percentage Federal participation to 20 percent from the 1992 standard of 25 percent to enable more projects to receive Federal cost-share support.

Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act is designed to accomplish one major objective--development of new water supplies responsibly--and in a timely manner. From a California perspective, this legislation compliments and is fully consistent with the recently published California Water Plan Update 2005--published in 2006--by California Department of Water Resources and the 2002 State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, Water Recycling 2030. Both reports conclude that a significant portion of new water to be developed in California will come from water recycling.

Throughout the Nation's more than 200-year history, water conflicts in the West have ``erupted'' periodically. This program is designed to reduce conflict through sound planning, improved management, expanding existing supplies, leveraged financing and meaningful partnerships.

The Subcommittee on Water and Power will hold a hearing on this proposed legislation later this month. At that time, the subcommittee will also hear testimony on three proposed projects, one each in Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. I have carefully reviewed these projects. They are designed to produce approximately 300,000 acre-feet of new water annually. These projects simultaneously reduce pressure on the Bay Delta--and other Federal and State water users dependent on the water from the delta--as well as the Colorado River. They will help drought-proof their water service areas.

Not too long ago, in a speech delivered at a WateReuse Association conference, John Keys, the recently retired Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, called recycled water The Last River to Tap. Commissioner Keys was right.

I would like to provide some additional detail on the legislation. The legislation provides new authority for the Secretary of the Interior to review non-Federal water reclamation and reuse project proposals, pursuant to new standards and procedures for such review.

New standards would include providing sufficient evidence to the Secretary of Interior that the project: (1) is technically viable and (2) has a financially capable project sponsor. The Secretary would have 180 days to submit to Congress: (1) a statement and explanation of the project's technical and financial viability, and (2) a recommendation on whether the project should be authorized for construction based on several specific factors. Factors to be considered would range from items related to project costs and benefits, to whether the project would help serve an identified Federal interest. The bill also includes transition procedures.

This program is vital to the West's future. I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski and my colleagues on the Energy Committee. I want to also thank Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and the committee's ranking member, Senator Jeff Bingaman for their support and assistance in the preparation of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2006. The act would authorize an innovative program to protect the environment while meeting the future water needs of urban and agricultural water users in the North Bay region of California for years to come.

As regulations continue to tighten restrictions on wastewater discharges into the San Francisco Bay, communities are faced with major financial challenges as they determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater. At the same time, agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing serious water shortages resulting from a serious overdraft of groundwater. The North Bay Water Reuse Program will solve both problems together.

When completed, the North Bay Water Reuse Program will provide for

the collection and conveyance of treated urban wastewater to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery.

In the off-season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will be used to increase surface water flows for restoration of wetland habitat in the former Cargill Salt Ponds.

This reclaimed water that would be applied productively to vineyards, fields and wetlands is now being discharged as treated wastewater into the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The North Bay Water Reuse Program will benefit the ecosystem of the bay by providing a cost-effective, environmentally sound alternative for the disposal of urban wastewater.

The legislation I am introducing today allows for the Federal participation of the first phase of this long-term regional project. This cost-shared water reclamation and reuse program is the first of its kind in Northern California, and the first to provide water primarily for agricultural and environmental uses. It is supported by the local governments in three counties--Napa, Sonoma and Marin--that have joined together to undertake the project. Agricultural organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the Napa Vintners Association, and the North Bay Agriculture Alliance, support the program. And environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute, likewise endorse the program.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program brings together stakeholders that are usually at odds with one another and provides an ideal solution to guarantee water to the environment and agricultural producers, and simultaneously providing regulatory relief to wastewater agencies.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 4556 be called up.

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

Mr. President, this amendment criminalizes the unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless disregard which permits construction of a border tunnel that is a tunnel between American land and another country's land; namely, Canada or Mexico or any subterranean passageway along international borders.

This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Kyl, Boxer, Talent, Cantwell, Salazar, Hutchison, and Bingaman. This amendment was part of the immigration bill. It was unanimously added to the immigration bill by the Judiciary Committee. I have tried to hotline this amendment. It was cleared on the Democratic side, and it was cleared on the Republican side with the exception of one Senator. I believe it is an important amendment. That is why I am offering it today as an amendment to this bill.

Believe it or not, today the act of constructing, financing, or using a tunnel between borders is not a Federal crime. This amendment changes that. In addition to criminalizing the unauthorized construction, financing, or use of a border tunnel on one's land, this amendment also doubles the criminal penalties for individuals caught using a tunnel to unlawfully smuggle aliens, goods, drugs, weapons of mass destruction, or terrorists. The amendment also allows for assets involved in the offense or any property traceable to the offense to be subject to forfeiture.

Finally, the amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate or amend Federal sentencing guidelines to provide for criminal penalties for persons convicted pursuant to the language of the amendment and to take into account the gravity of this crime when considering base offense levels.

One might ask: Why is this important? I will answer that. Since September 11, 43 tunnels and subterranean passageways into the United States have been discovered--26 tunnels along the California-Mexican border, 16 tunnels along the Arizona-Mexican border, and 1 tunnel along the Washington-Canadian border. The risk to national security that is raised by the use of these tunnels is one this body is already aware of. In fact, the Senate Appropriations Committee included report language on this topic, which reads:

Policy on tunnels along the border: The Committee is

concerned with the Department's lack of a clear policy

regarding which agency is responsible for securing, closing,

and ultimately filling tunnels which are discovered crossing

under our land borders. It appears decisions regarding the

handling of tunnels are made on an ad hoc basis, depending on

which agency discovers the tunnel and has the resources to

fill it. With nearly four dozen known tunnels along our

borders, it is imperative a policy regarding tunnels be

developed.

And it goes on. It asks that this policy be developed not later than February 8.

This report language in the appropriations bill is a good first step, but it is just that. The cosponsors of this amendment and I believe that we send a further message that border tunnels are a problem and they must be dealt with. As I mentioned, 43 border tunnels have been discovered in the United States. These tunnels range in complexity from simple gopher holes a few feet long at the border to massive drug- cartel-built megatunnels costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to construct.

I recently visited a border tunnel on the Mexican-San Diego border. Let me tell you what I found. I found a tunnel that was extraordinarily sophisticated. It was six football fields long. It went under other buildings. It went under the border. The American side was a large warehouse, brand new, huge warehouse, half a long square block, kept empty, small rooms inside the warehouse. Inside one room, which I will show you in a minute, was a hatch. Down the hatch was a tunnel, a concrete floor, ventilation, a pump to drain it, and electricity, as we can see. This was the tunnel interior.

This is a picture of the interior. We can see the concrete. At one end of the tunnel was 2,000 pounds of marijuana, and at the other end was 300 pounds of marijuana.

This was the hatch in a room, and it looked very benign. You simply lifted up two floor tiles, and under those floor tiles, you descended about 10 feet and there was this huge apparatus which clearly had been functioning for a substantial period of time. I found it just amazing.

The building, interestingly enough, was sold about a year ago to an individual who never leased it out. I have always wondered: Why wouldn't you lease out a warehouse? That question still has not been answered to my satisfaction.

I also learned there is no law against it. There is no law that says you have to do due diligence on your property if it is on the border to see that somebody doesn't come along and dig a tunnel such as this and smuggle aliens, smuggle drugs, possibly smuggle terrorists, possibly smuggle weapons. This is a way to do it. Therefore, I believe this amendment belongs in this bill.

My hope, given the importance of criminalizing this action, is that this amendment will be included in the managers' amendment. We will still be delighted if that is the case. I am not sure that is possible. I believe to allow another period of time to go by with no law that says it is illegal to build a border tunnel unless you are authorized to do so, and has some sanctions to it, is really long overdue. It would be terrible if we found out one day that a group of 15 or 16 terrorists came in from Mexico or came in from Canada to the State of Washington through a border tunnel and we had done nothing about it.

This amendment also says that the owner of property along the border must be reasonably aware, must do their due diligence to see that their property is maintained and a border tunnel is prevented.

I am hopeful this amendment will be accepted and, if not, I will certainly ask for the yeas and nays.

Would the Senator like me to hold on the yeas and nays?

Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg. I know Senator Kyl is going to come to the floor and speak on the amendment as well. I do not see him at this time.

I thank the Senator for those comments.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the Cucamonga Valley Water District, the Western Municipal Water District, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, and the City of Corona Water Utility. These projects will produce approximately 161,000 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.

This legislation is intended to be the companion to two House of Representatives bills: H.R. 802, sponsored by David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert, Joe Baca, and Gary Miller; and H.R. 1008, sponsored by Ken Calvert, Jerry Lewis, Joe Baca and Darrell Issa. H.R. 802 and H.R. 1008 have each passed the House of Representatives twice, in both this Congress and the previous Congress.

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.

I would like to describe the projects in this bill:

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.

The next project is Western Municipal Water District's Riverside- Corona Feeder. Western provides supplemental water to a 510 square mile area of growing western Riverside County and serves a population of more than one-half million people. As a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--MWD--Western provides supplemental water to the cities of Corona, Norco, and Riverside and the water agencies of Elsinore Valley and Rancho California. Western also serves customers in the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante, Eagle Valley, Temescal Creek, Woodcrest, Lake Mathews, and March Air Reserve Base.

The purpose of the Riverside--Corona Feeder water supply project is to capture and store new water in wet years in order to increase firm water supplies, reduce water costs, and improve water quality. The project will include about 20 wells and 28 miles of pipeline. Studies have shown the safe annual yield of the aquifer is about 40,000 acre- feet.

The project would allow locally stored water to replace imported water from Colorado River and the State project sources in times of drought or other shortages. The project proposes to manage the ground water levels by the construction of ground water wells and pumping capacity to deliver the pumped ground water supply to water users. A new water conveyance pipeline is also proposed that will serve western Riverside County.

There are also very important environmental remediation aspects of the project. Up to half of the wells could be placed within plumes of VOCs and perchlorate. These wells would remediate about 20,000 acre- feet of currently contaminated water per year.

Next, the city of Corona Water Recycling and Reuse Project will consist of three reservoirs and two pump stations along with retrofitted user irrigation systems.

Additionally, 27 miles of pipelines will separate recycled water from drinking water. The reclamation system will enable the city of Corona to provide recycled water to parks, landscape maintenance districts, schools, landscaped freeway frontages and any other project that does not require potable water. It will also reduce the need for increased water imports and construction of additional drinking water infrastructure.

Finally, the Yucaipa Valley Water Supply Renewal Project will maximize the various water resources in the Yucaipa Valley. Federal funds would be used to provide federal assistance for planning, designing, and constructing the new Yucaipa Valley Regional Water Filtration Facility that is part of the renewal project. The new facility will contain a reverse osmosis system and a brine pipeline to remove salinity, contaminants, and organic compounds from the water supply in the Yucaipa Valley. The brine pipeline will extend nearly 20 miles to the existing Santa Ana Regional Interceptor brine pipeline.

This project will minimize the amount of water imported from northern California, maximize the use of higher quality water, reduce withdrawals from ground water supplies, and provide a long-term, drought-proof water supply. The full project is expected to reduce demands on the California State Water Project by over 4 billion gallons per year, which is a sufficient quantity of water for 27,000 families.

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.

It also has a long history. In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California would need an alternative water supply source because it was receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation.

In a bold and farsighted maneuver, in August 1991, Secretary Lujan launched the Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado River water supply reductions.

Congress, in 1992, was completing work on major water legislation saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Lujan's proposal, a year after it was first announced, became title XVI, the Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is the essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, El 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 today to introduce legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the Cucamonga Valley Water District, the Western Municipal Water District, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, and the City of Corona Water Utility. These projects will produce approximately 161,000 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.

This legislation is intended to be the companion to two House of Representatives bills: H.R. 802, sponsored by David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert, Joe Baca, and Gary Miller; and H.R. 1008, sponsored by Ken Calvert, Jerry Lewis, Joe Baca and Darrell Issa. H.R. 802 and H.R. 1008 have each passed the House of Representatives twice, in both this Congress and the previous Congress.

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.

I would like to describe the projects in this bill:

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.

The next project is Western Municipal Water District's Riverside- Corona Feeder. Western provides supplemental water to a 510 square mile area of growing western Riverside County and serves a population of more than one-half million people. As a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--MWD--Western provides supplemental water to the cities of Corona, Norco, and Riverside and the water agencies of Elsinore Valley and Rancho California. Western also serves customers in the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante, Eagle Valley, Temescal Creek, Woodcrest, Lake Mathews, and March Air Reserve Base.

The purpose of the Riverside--Corona Feeder water supply project is to capture and store new water in wet years in order to increase firm water supplies, reduce water costs, and improve water quality. The project will include about 20 wells and 28 miles of pipeline. Studies have shown the safe annual yield of the aquifer is about 40,000 acre- feet.

The project would allow locally stored water to replace imported water from Colorado River and the State project sources in times of drought or other shortages. The project proposes to manage the ground water levels by the construction of ground water wells and pumping capacity to deliver the pumped ground water supply to water users. A new water conveyance pipeline is also proposed that will serve western Riverside County.

There are also very important environmental remediation aspects of the project. Up to half of the wells could be placed within plumes of VOCs and perchlorate. These wells would remediate about 20,000 acre- feet of currently contaminated water per year.

Next, the city of Corona Water Recycling and Reuse Project will consist of three reservoirs and two pump stations along with retrofitted user irrigation systems.

Additionally, 27 miles of pipelines will separate recycled water from drinking water. The reclamation system will enable the city of Corona to provide recycled water to parks, landscape maintenance districts, schools, landscaped freeway frontages and any other project that does not require potable water. It will also reduce the need for increased water imports and construction of additional drinking water infrastructure.

Finally, the Yucaipa Valley Water Supply Renewal Project will maximize the various water resources in the Yucaipa Valley. Federal funds would be used to provide federal assistance for planning, designing, and constructing the new Yucaipa Valley Regional Water Filtration Facility that is part of the renewal project. The new facility will contain a reverse osmosis system and a brine pipeline to remove salinity, contaminants, and organic compounds from the water supply in the Yucaipa Valley. The brine pipeline will extend nearly 20 miles to the existing Santa Ana Regional Interceptor brine pipeline.

This project will minimize the amount of water imported from northern California, maximize the use of higher quality water, reduce withdrawals from ground water supplies, and provide a long-term, drought-proof water supply. The full project is expected to reduce demands on the California State Water Project by over 4 billion gallons per year, which is a sufficient quantity of water for 27,000 families.

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.

It also has a long history. In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California would need an alternative water supply source because it was receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation.

In a bold and farsighted maneuver, in August 1991, Secretary Lujan launched the Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado River water supply reductions.

Congress, in 1992, was completing work on major water legislation saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Lujan's proposal, a year after it was first announced, became title XVI, the Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is the essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, El 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 thank the Senator from Arkansas for her remarks. I don't think anyone speaks more eloquently about the needs of American families than Blanche Lincoln. It is always real and it is always practical. I am just delighted to be a colleague of hers.

I rise today to say why stem cell research should be part of this Democratic Women's Checklist for Change. The reason is very simple, and that is because stem cell research offers the promise of historic advances in the treatment of catastrophic disease. It is that simple.

The potential for this research was in the news again last week, as scientists at Johns Hopkins announced that they used embryonic stem cells to regenerate damaged nerves in paralyzed rats. That is something that no one ever thought could be done. After being treated with cells harvested from mouse embryos, most of the rats regained enough strength to walk and bear weight on their previously paralyzed hind legs.

Just imagine what this discovery could one day mean for patients with spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis or ALS. It could be revolutionary because one thing science believed was that the spinal cord, once severed,

could never be regenerated. Now, for the first time in history, we see there may be a solution to that and it rests with stem cell research.

Translating this discovery into treatment of human patients will likely take several years, and it will likely not see fruition without Federal research dollars. Here is the rub. Our researchers face a major roadblock imposed by the President in August of 2001, when he limited Federal funding to 22 lines of stem cells. All of these available lines are now contaminated with mouse feeder cells, so virtually there is no Federal ongoing research.

Thirteen months ago, the House approved a bipartisan bill by Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, a bill that would remove this roadblock. It would permit promising research to go forward. It would offer new hope to millions of Americans suffering from disability, diseases, and spinal cord injuries. The Castle-DeGette bill essentially says that it would be possible to use embryos that are rejected in IVF clinics; that is, in vitro fertilization clinics. All of us know that tens of thousands, if not millions, of these embryos are rejected and they are destroyed. Those embryos could be taken to form new stem cell lines under this bill.

The votes are here to pass this bill today, but the President has vowed a veto, and the Republican leadership refuses to bring it to the floor. In the year that we have waited for Senate action, millions more are now waiting for cures that one day could come from stem cell research. In the last year, consider this: 1.4 million Americans were diagnosed with cancer; 60,000 Americans were diagnosed with Parkinson's disease; 11,000 Americans suffered spinal cord injuries; and 1.5 million adults were diagnosed with diabetes.

These are just new diagnoses. Think of all the Americans who continue to suffer cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and catastrophic diseases which could potentially be helped by embryonic stem cell research.

The administration's policies have left our researchers far behind the rest of the world. In fact, other countries are, today, laying the foundation for groundbreaking cures, while U.S. scientists are not able to gain Federal funding for research. Evidence that the United States is no longer the world leader in embryonic stem cell research is mounting. Scientists around the world have created 128 new embryonic stem cell lines since President Bush announced his policy. Only 34 of these new lines were created in our country. The proportion of embryonic stem cell papers published by U.S. research groups has fallen dramatically in the past 2 years. At least 10 other nations--Germany, Finland, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, China, Australia--are investing substantial sums of government money in embryonic stem cell research. That is totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Other nations are constructing facilities, they are attracting our American researchers who should be here at home doing this research, and they are learning more every day.

The United States, on the other hand, remains at the starting line. I don't think we can afford to watch other nations move ahead. Eight years ago, I introduced one of the first bills addressing stem cell research, so we have waited this long--8 years--for action. Time and time again, we have pressed for action on the floor of the Senate. We pressed for it privately. We pressed for it by letter. We pressed for it by press conference with groups of sufferers of catastrophic diseases. All of this has been to no avail. I can't believe it. I can't believe this kind of recalcitrance. And all of this is despite the fact that every poll shows a dominant majority of Americans support stem cell research.

It is time the Senate place the health of Americans ahead of the views of a limited number of people whose views are apart from the mainstream of America. We owe it to the 110 million Americans suffering daily from debilitating and catastrophic disease. Every day that we wait, more people develop diseases that could one day be cured. Every day we wait, other nations move further ahead.

I urge the Republican leadership to bring the Castle-DeGette stem cell bill to the floor and allow Federal research to move forward. A Democratic Senate would listen to the American people. A Democratic Senate would make the promotion of this promising research a reality. This Senate is in Republican control. The Republican-controlled House has passed this bill. A dominant majority of the American people say enact this bill. Yet this Senate, Republican controlled, becomes the roadblock.

I urge the Republican leadership to reconsider and bring the Castle- DeGette bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

Mr. President, I would like to yield for my colleague, the distinguished Senator from the great State that harbors the great city of New Orleans, LA. She will speak about making Americans upwardly economically mobile in the American workplace.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding we are in morning business.

But that it would be acceptable for me to speak on the pending business, which is the flag amendment.

Mr. President, I rise as the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment. I have given this a lot of thought for a long time. I believe what we have before us is language that is essentially content neutral. It is on conduct--not speech. I will make that argument later on in my remarks, but I begin my remarks with how I came to believe that the American flag is something very special.

For those of us who are westerners, the Pacific battles of World War II had very special significance.

Reporters were not embedded, there was no television coverage, and the war in the Pacific was terrible--island battle after island battle--the death march at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and onward.

On the morning of February 24, 1945, I was a 12-year-old. I picked up a copy of the San Francisco Chronicle. There on the cover was the now iconic photograph done by a Chronicle photographer by the name of Joe Rosenthal, and it was a photograph of U.S. marines struggling to raise Old Glory on a promontory, a rocky promontory above Iwo Jima.

For me--at that time as a 12-year-old--and for the Nation, the photo was a bolt of electricity that boosted morale amidst the brutal suffering of the Pacific campaign.

The war was based on such solid ground and victory was so hard- pressed that when the flag unfurled on the rocky promontory on Iwo Jima, its symbolism of everything courageous about my country was etched into my mind for all time. This photo cemented my views of the flag for all time.

In a sense, our flag is the physical fabric of our society, knitting together disparate peoples from distant lands, uniting us in a common bond, not just of individual liberty but also of responsibility to one another.

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter called the flag ``The symbol of our national life.'' I, too, have always looked at the flag as the symbol of our democracy, our shared values, our commitment to justice, our remembrance to those who have sacrificed to defend these principles.

For our veterans, the flag represents the democracy and freedom they fought so hard to protect. Today there are almost 300,000 troops serving overseas, putting their lives on the line every day to fight for the fundamental principles that our flag symbolizes.

The flag's design carries our history. My proudest possession is a 13-star flag. When you look at this flag, now faded and worn, you see the detail of the 200-year-old hand stitching--and the significance of every star and stripe.

The colors were chosen at the Second Continental Congress in 1777. We all know them well: Red for heartiness and courage; white for purity and innocence; blue for vigilance, perseverance, and justice. Even the number of stripes has meaning--13 for 13 colonies.

Our flag is unique not only in the hearts and minds of Americans, but in our laws and customs as well. No other emblem or symbol in our Nation carries with it such a specific code of conduct and protocol in its display and handling.

For example, Federal law specifically directs that the flag should never be displayed with its union down, except as a signal of dire distress or in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

The U.S. flag should never touch anything beneath it: neither ground, floor,

water, or merchandise. The flag must be lit at night. It should never be dipped to any person or thing. And the flag should never be carried horizontally but should always be carried aloft and free.

The flag flies over our government buildings throughout the country. It flies over our embassies abroad, a silent but strong reminder that when in those buildings, one is on American soil and afforded all the protections and liberties enjoyed back home.

Last December, I traveled to Iraq and met with some of the brave men and women in the armed forces that are serving there. We flew out of Baghdad on a C-130 that we shared with a flag-draped coffin accompanied by a military escort.

The young man or woman in that coffin gave their life under the banner of this flag.

In 1974, Justice Byron White wrote that:

It is well within the powers of Congress to adopt and

prescribe a national flag and to protect the unity of that

flag. . . . [T]he flag is an important symbol of nationhood

and unity, created by the Nation and endowed with certain

attributes.

Justice White continued:

[T]here would seem to be little question about the power of

Congress to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial or

to prevent overlaying it with words or other objects. The

flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection.

I echo the opinion of Justice White: ``The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection.''

The American flag is our monument in cloth.

The flag flying over our Capitol building today, the flag flying over my home here and in San Francisco, each of these flags, separated by distance but not symbolic value, is its own monument to everything America represents. And it should be protected as such.

There is a sturdy historical and legal foundation for special protection for the flag. Constitutional scholars as diverse as Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren and Associate Justices Stevens and Hugo Black have vouched for the unique status of the national flag.

On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed the first Flag Act:

Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of

thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be

thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new

Constellation.

Historically, the flag has been protected by statute. In 1989, 48 of our 50 States had statutes restricting flag desecration. However, that protection ended in 1989.

That year the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, struck down a Texas State law prohibiting the desecration of American flags in a manner that would be offensive to others in the Texas v. Johnson case.

Although the Court held that the government has ``a legitimate interest in making efforts to `preserv[e] the national flag as an unalloyed symbol of our country,' '' it nevertheless concluded that burning the flag constituted speech under the first amendment, and that the Texas statute outlawing flag desecration was an impermissible regulation of the content of a person's speech.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent in Johnson that the flag is:

a symbol of our freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious

tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our

aspirations.

I agree with Justice Stevens.

In response to the Johnson case, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which sought to ban flag desecration in a ``content- neutral'' way that would be permitted by the courts. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court struck down that Federal statute as well.

In that case, United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court, by another 5-to-4 vote, held that although the Federal statute prohibiting flag desecration did not limit speech based on content, which had been found unconstitutional in Johnson, the statute still violated the first amendment because Congress's intent in passing the statute was ``related to the suppression of free expression.''

The Supreme Court has spoken, and I do not wish to quarrel with its decisions.

However, the Johnson and Eichman decisions make it clear that without a constitutional amendment no Federal statute protecting the flag will survive judicial review.

Consequently, the only avenue available for restoring protection to the flag is to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, any legislation passed by Congress or State legislatures will simply be struck down.

The Constitution itself prescribes instructions for its amendment when nepessary for the good of the Nation. And the Constitution is, after all, a living text that has been amended 27 times since its creation.

I do not take amending the Constitution lightly. It is a serious business and we need to tread carefully. However, the change we seek to make is narrow, it is limited, and it is necessary.

Some critics say we must choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the first amendment. I strongly disagree.

The freedom of speech enshrined in the first amendment is a cornerstone of our great Nation.

However, there is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. While I might disagree with those who protest, I defend their right to do so.

Protecting the flag will not prevent anyone from expressing his or her point of view, regardless of what that point of view may be.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized many instances in which speech is not protected, such as obscenity and ``fighting words.'' I believe that desecrating an American flag falls into the same category.

Limiting this very specific conduct will leave both the flag and speech safe.

Amending the Constitution for this narrow and necessary purpose is an implicit recognition of the depth and breadth of the first amendment. What could more clearly signal the scope and strength of our freedom of speech than the fact that even protecting our Nation's symbol from desecration requires a constitutional amendment?

I would like to assure those with reservations about amending the Constitution that the path we are taking is no slippery slope.

There will be no stampede of constitutional amendments that could erode our freedom of speech. There will be no litany of restrictions.

There has been much confusion surrounding this amendment.

It does not prohibit flag burning, as is so often stated. This amendment would, quite simply, enable the Congress--you and I and our 98 other Members, Mr. President, as well as the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, and the President of the United States--to set the protocols governing our flag and protecting it as it has been protected throughout most of this Nation's history.

In other words, we will hold hearings. We will devise legislation. We will debate that legislation on the floor of both bodies. The purpose is to enable this body and the other body to establish a protocol for the handling of the American flag. No more, no less. It is content neutral. It does not ban desecration, burning, defiling, or anything else.

Let me read the text of the amendment:

The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical

desecration of the flag of the United States.

Just as 48 States debated this prior to 1989, and just as 48 States made a decision and passed legislation, the Congress of the United States would now have the power.

That is it. No more. No less.

The resolution--if passed by three-quarters of the 50 State legislatures--would merely return to Congress its historical power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag.

The amendment will enable Congress to have a full and fair debate on the appropriate protections for the flag.

As President Woodrow Wilson, who proclaimed the first Flag Day in 1916, said:

This flag, which we honor and under which we serve, is the

emblem of our unity, our power, our thought and purpose as a

nation. It has no other character than that which we give it

from generation to generation. . . . Though silent, it speaks

to us--speaks to us of the past, of the men and women who

went before us, and of the records they wrote upon it.

In honor of this emblem of America, I ask that this body permit us to give

the American people the opportunity to decide if the Constitution should be amended. It is time to let the people decide.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.