Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment by my colleague from California to strke the so-called ``safe harbor provision'' in the amendment offered by the majority leader that would shield ethanol producers and refiners from any liability if the fuel additive harms the environment or public health.

Candidly, I find this ``safe harbor provision'' astounding.

I believe it is egregious public policy to mandate ethanol into our fuel supply in the first place--and even worse to provide complete liability protection to the fuel additive before scientific and health experts can fully investigate the impact of tripling ethanol on the air we breathe and the water we drink.

This is exactly the mistake we made with MTBE. Over the past several years, we have learned that MTBE has contaminated our water and may be a human carcinogen.

As exemplified by our Nation's experience with MTBE, there can be severe environmental and health repercussions when we mandate the use of any one fuel additive.

Last fall a California jury found there was ``clear and convincing evidence'' that three major oil companies acted ``with malice'' by polluting ground water at Lake Tahoe with MTBE because the gasoline they sold was ``defective in design'' and there was failure to warn of its pollution hazard. After a 5-month trial, Shell Oil and Lyondell Chemical Company were found guilty of withholding information on the dangers of MTBE. The firms settled with the South Lake Tahoe Water District for $69 million.

This case demonstrates why we cannot surrender the rights of citizens to hold polluters accountable for harm they inflict.

How can the Senate favor exempting the ethanol industry from this kind of wrongdoing? I urge my colleagues to take a look at the so- called ``safe harbor'' provision that will give the ethanol industry unprecedented protection against consumers and communities that may seek legal redress against the harm ethanol may cause.

Our amendment would strike this ridiculous exemption.

If we do not strike this provision, polluters will receive unprecedented protection from damage to public health or the environment.

If we do not strike this provision, what incentive will there be for ethanol manufacturers and refiners to make their products as safe as possible and thoroughly test their long-term effects?

If we do not strike this provision, how else can we hold manufacturers accountable when fuel additives cause harm?

Mandating ethanol into our fuel supply raises serious health and environmental concerns. What effect will an ethanol mandate have on our environment? What are the health risks?

Although the scientific opinion is not unanimous, evidence suggests that; one, reformulated gasoline with ethanol produces more smog pollution than reformulated gas without it; and, two, ethanol enables the toxic chemicals in gasoline to break apart and seep further into groundwater even faster than conventional gasoline.

Ethanol is often made out to be an ideal ``renewable fuel'' giving off fewer emissions. Yet, on balance, ethanol can be a cause of more air pollution because it produces smog in the summer months. Smog is a powerful respiratory irritant that affects large segments of the population. It has an especially pernicious effect on the elderly, children, and individuals with existing respiratory problems such as asthma.

Just last week the American Lung Association named California the smoggiest state by listing nine counties and six metropolitan areas in California as having the worst conditions.

A 1999 report from the National Academy of Sciences found, ``the use of commonly available oxygenates [like ethanol] in [Reformulated Gasoline] has little impact on improving ozone air quality and has some disadvantages. Moreover, some data suggest that oxygenates can lead to higher Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions.'' Nitrogen Oxides are known to cause smog.

The American Lung Association report also noted that half of Americans are living in counties with unhealthy smog levels. Why would we want to take the chance of increasing these unhealthy smog levels by mandating billions of unnecessary gallons of ethanol into our fuel supply?

Thus, ethanol can be both good and bad for air quality. To me it would make sense to maximize the advantages of ethanol, while minimizing the disadvantages. This is exactly why States should have flexibility to decide what goes into their gasoline in order to meet clean air standards, and ethanol should not be mandated--certainly not at this level. And if we are

mandating it, why exempt manufacturers and refiners from their legal responsibility to provide a safe product?

Evidence also suggests that ethanol accelerates the ability of toxins found in gasoline to seep into our groundwater supplies. The EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates found ethanol ``may retard biodegradation and increase movement of benzene and other hydrocarbons around leaking tanks.''

And according to a report by the State of California entitled ``Health and Environmental Assessment of the Use of Ethanol as a Fuel Oxygenate,'' there are valid questions about the impact of ethanol on ground and surface water. An analysis in the report found there will be a 20 percent increase in public drinking water wells contaminated with benzene if a significant amount of ethanol is used. Benzene is a known human carcinogen.

At a hearing held on the House side last year, Professor Gordon Rausser of UC Berkeley commented on the potential harm of ethanol on groundwater. Professor Rausser testified:

when gasoline that contains ethanol is released into

groundwater, the resulting benzene plumes can be longer and

more persistent than plumes resulting from releases of

conventional gasoline. Research suggests that the presence of

ethanol in gasoline will delay the degradation of benzene and

will lengthen the benzene plumes by between 25 percent and

100 percent.

This evidence on the potential harm of ethanol is extraordinarily troubling.

I am at a loss to understand why the Senate would support sweeping liability protection for fuel producers. Taking away the ability of families and communities to seek redress for the harm caused by fuel additives is NOT something I believe this Senate should be doing.

Let me read part of a letter sent by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer opposing the ethanol safe harbor provision. Lockyer writes:

Congress should not enact the current safeharbor

provisions, which could be construed as granting oil

companies a very broad immunity. As exemplified by MTBE,

there can be dire consequences from the use of defective fuel

additives.

Lockyer continues:

If there is a defect with a particular fuel, the oil

companies should be held accountable under the common law

principles for using such a fuel. In addition, by including

fuels and not just renewable fuels, this section has a

extraordinarily broad reach. There is no reason to add

immunity for a fuel just because one drop of renewable fuel

is added to that fuel. For as long as automobiles have been

used, oil companies have been subject to common law product

liability rules. There is no need to change these fundamental

principles.

We need to protect the basic rights American families enjoy remain in place to keep our air and water safe.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to protect our communities from harm caused by fuel additives.

Mr. President, May 29, 2003 marks a true milestone, a triumph of the human spirit. On that day, 50 years earlier, two young men--Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay--became the first to reach the highest point on earth, the fabled summit of Mt. Everest.

At 29,028 feet above sea level, Everest had defied 15 earlier attempts, including the doomed expedition of George Mallory, in 1924.

Some have called Everest the Third Pole, after the North Pole, first reached in 1909, and the South Pole, reached in 1911.

Small wonder, then, that these two intrepid climbers--the lanky beekeeper

from New Zealand and the sprightly Sherpa born in Tibet--became instant celebrities back in 1953, and have since evolved into legendary figures.

The son of a yak herder, Tenzing Norgay, who died in 1986, became the first humbly born Asian to rise to global fame entirely through his own efforts and sheer willpower. In many ways his story has a strong American flavor to it--with enough determination and hard work, anyone can achieve anything.

Norgay spoke 13 languages but could neither read nor write. He always told his children: ``I climbed Everest so you wouldn't have to.'' His son, Norbu, now a resident of San Francisco, took these words to heart. College became his Everest.

Equally extraordinary is how Hillary and Norgay used their fame not for personal gain, but as champions of their people and, later, to help and protect the unique culture of the Sherpas.

For nearly 25 years now, I have been honored to consider Sir Edmund Hillary my friend. In September of 1981, he was with my husband when he fulfilled a dream: entering the beautiful Kanshung valley, in an attempt to climb the east face of Everest from Tibet.

In concert with the American Himalayan Foundation, Sir Edmund's Himalayan Trust, which was established in 1962, has been leading the effort to build schools, bridges, hospitals, and micro hydro plants, out of his deep and lasting affection for the Sherpa people.

To date, they have built 27 schools where once there were none. I am not talking about just funding alone--Sir Edmund actually took part in the actual construction of these and other buildings. Here is a man who puts the divots back. Just ask the Sherpa children who grew up tending yaks who are now doctors, pilots and investment bankers.

The Himalayan Trust has also built two hospitals, one in Khunde and one in Paphlu, and 11 village clinics that provide health care for the Sherpa communities and trekkers alike.

The Trust has worked to combat the deforestation of the Khumbu, caused largely by tourism, by planting more than 1 million trees, to restore the sacred monasteries at Tengbouche and Thame--central sites for the spirituality of the Sherpas, and in the establishment, in 1976, of the Sagarmatha National Park. Sagarmatha is the Nepali name for Mount Everest.

At 83 years old, New Zealand's former High Commissioner to India is still going strong. For half a century now he has been one of the enduring figures of our time.

He has taught me and so many others about the simple yet majestic power of the Himalayas and the marvelous but far too often forgotten people whose ancient culture is tied so closely to those amazing mountains.

Being the first to reach the top of the world would ensure anyone's name in the history books--and Hillary and Norgay achieved that the moment news spread of their heroic accomplishment.

But I believe had they not been the men they were--soft spoken and down to earth, devoted to actions and example, to helping others rather than themselves--then they would have ended up as mere footnotes.

Instead, the names of Hillary and Norgay remain an inspiration to people around the world. And I am absolutely certain that the same will be true 50 years from now, when it comes time to celebrate the 100th anniversary, and for many other anniversaries to follow.

Mr. President, I rise along with my distinguished colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to introduce the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which would establish a complete import ban on all products from Burma.

On May 30, Aung San Suu Kyi and at least 17 officials of the National League for Democracy, NLD, were detained after a clash in the town of Ye-u, after reportedly being attacked by members of the Union Solidarity Development Association, a paramilitary organization created by the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council,

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

What is the order of business?

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

I yield.

This is an amendment to the pending first-degree ethanol mandate amendment to provide authority to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to waive the ethanol mandate if a State or region does not need to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

We all must understand this ethanol amendment is a permanent mandate. Regardless of what advances are made in technology, whether a hybrid engine, whether a hydrogen-driven engine, regardless of any advance, this ethanol mandate is forever. Therefore, it offers very real concern.

In the pending first-degree ethanol amendment, there is a waiver now that allows the Administrator of the EPA to waive the ethanol amendment if it would harm the economy or the environment of a State, a region, or the United States. I believe the EPA Administrator should also be able to waive the ethanol mandate if a State or a region does not need ethanol to make the air cleaner and meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Why require something that is not needed? Why require it if there should be an advance in technology that makes the use of ethanol unnecessary?

California and other States that do not need ethanol to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act should be allowed to make their case to the EPA and then the Administrator can decide if the ethanol mandate should be waived.

For California, the ethanol mandate will force more ethanol into our fuel supply than we need to achieve clean air. The mandate forces California to use over 8 years 2.5 billion gallons that the State does not need.

This chart makes very clear this is a superfluous mandate. The blue shows what California needs in terms of ethanol over the next 8 years, to 2012. The top amount is 143 million gallons. It averages about 140 million gallons a year. California could use that amount and meet all of the clean air standards. This bill requires California to use over this period of time up to 600 million gallons, so it almost triples in the outyears the amount of ethanol that is forced on California beyond its need. This is a real problem in terms of legislation. Why would anyone force something on a State that it does not need and then provide, if the State does not use it, that it has to pay anyway?

If anything is poor public policy, this ethanol mandate is poor public policy. It also actually achieves a transfer of wealth from all States to the midwest corn States.

California does not need ethanol to produce cleaner air because the State has developed its own unique gasoline formula. Refiners use an approach called the predictive model which can produce clean burning reformulated gasoline with oxygenates, with less than 2 percent oxygenate or with no oxygenate at all.

As Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in March before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

Refiners have been saying for years that they can produce

gasoline meeting clean-burning fuels and federal reformulated

gasoline requirements without the use of oxygenates. . . . In

addition, reformulated blendstocks--the base in which

oxygenates are added--typically meet RFG performance

requirements before oxygenates are added. These facts

demonstrate that oxygenates are not needed.

As a matter of fact, virtually every refiner I talked to says if you want to clean the air, give us flexibility, allow us to blend gasoline to do that. In other words, set the standards as the Clean Air Act does and allow us to have the flexibility needed to meet those standards.

This mandate prevents that. It is driven by the self-interest of the corn States and driven by the self-interest of the ethanol producers, of which the largest beneficiary is Archer Daniels Midland. Archer Daniels Midland will control 46 percent of the ethanol market, with every other company controlling not more than 6 percent of the market. In essence, what we are doing is giving a huge transfer of wealth to one American company, an American company that has been convicted of corrupt practices in the 1990s.

I have real problems with this bill. As I said, California can achieve clean air without the use of oxygenates. The State has long sought a waiver of the 2-percent oxygenate requirement. I have written and called former EPA Administrator Browner, the current Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, and President Clinton and President Bush, urging approval of a waiver for our State. Yet both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have denied California's request. Despite the scientific evidence, it is unlikely that the EPA Administrator will ever grant a waiver for California, but I believe the necessity of the ethanol mandate for a State or region should be something the EPA Administrator considers. I don't believe it is too much to ask for the EPA to consider if ethanol is needed in a specific State or region when determining if a waiver from the mandate should be granted.

As I say, this amendment simply amends the waiver part of the Frist- Daschle bill to permit a waiver in the event that a State can demonstrate to the EPA Administrator that it can meet the clean air standards without the use of ethanol.

I hope this amendment will have an opportunity of being agreed to. I believe it is the right thing to do. I believe it is the good public policy thing to do. I believe that creating a mandate preventing flexibility in the blending of gasoline forever--which this mandate does--is flawed and potentially dangerous public policy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I look forward to responding to the distinguished Democratic leader, with whom I profoundly disagree. The distinguished Democratic leader made the point--well, California is already using ethanol in its gasoline. My goodness, it is already using it up to 65 percent. California is forced to use it. It is forced to use it. Yet it doesn't need to use it. That is my point. The egregious 2-percent Federal oxygenate requirement forces California to move in this direction if it is going to phase out MTBE, which is another oxygenate which has been shown to have very detrimental environmental and health effects. The Governor has said he is going to phase it out by the end of this year. Consequently, to meet the 2-percent oxygenate requirement--which I think is flawed public policy--again, California is forced to begin to use this ethanol.

The Democratic leader also says that I have supported a renewable portfolio standard. In fact I have. California has a renewable portfolio standard. It is for wind, it is for solar, it is for alternative energies, and California has set it at 10 percent. Yes, I support that. That is totally different than an ethanol requirement, which is not a renewable energy source like solar or wind.

To add insult to injury, the Democratic leader says this doesn't require States to use it. Then I ask the question: Why does his legislation exempt Alaska and Hawaii? If it doesn't force States to use it, why is there an exemption that exempts Alaska and Hawaii? Let me read it to you, on page 4 of the bill:

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this

paragraph the administrator shall promulgate regulations to

ensure that gasoline sold or introduced into commerce in the

United States, except in Alaska and Hawaii, on an annual

average basis, contains the applicable volume of renewable

fuel determined in accordance with subparagraph (b).

Yes, except I am not feeling too gentle at the moment, but I am happy to.

I thank the distinguished Democratic leader.

I would like to refute his comment on how well things are going in California and ethanol being accommodated by reading an article in the Los Angeles Times of May 10.

California gasoline prices rose higher and faster than pump

prices elsewhere in the nation this year because of supply

problems caused by refinery repairs and the transition to a

new clean-fuel additive, the U.S. Energy Department said

Friday.

Refiners in the state are switching to ethanol as part of

the recipe for cleaner-burning fuel, eliminating water-

polluting methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, in advance of

a Jan. 1 State ban.

This change in fuel additives, designed to meet the Federal

oxygen requirement for gas, helped push California gas prices

higher and might leave the state short of supplies during

peak summer driving months, the report by the Energy

Information Administration said.

That in turn could trigger more frequent price spikes, said

the EIA, the Energy Department's research and statistical

arm. The agency said the report was a preliminary assessment

and that it plans to release more detailed findings this

fall.

``There is a chance that California could see a recurring

problem with volatility,'' said Joanne Shore, an EIA senior

analyst who led the team that produced the report.

``Certainly, that is an issue for this summer that everyone

is going to continue to watch.''

The report, requested by Rep. Doug Ose (R-Sacramento),

provides more ammunition for California officials who have

demanded without success that the state be freed from the

Federal requirement to add oxygenates to its gasoline.

I don't understand why the Democratic leader is so determined to force on those who do not want a special mandate, which not only he doesn't want, but who do not need the special mandate. We can have as clean a gas as they can refine in South Dakota, provided they refine gas in South Dakota. We can do it as well, or better. We can do it in a reformulated formula which will mean clean air standards. The 2 percent oxygenate requirement was flawed and the leader is replacing it with something equally flawed. Supposing in 5 years we have new technology that enables the cleaner burning engine. We still have to put ethanol in it, and we still have to put ethanol in a hydrogen engine.

I guess what I object to--and I can go into trade preferences and I can go into subsidies. Subsidies for a mandate is incredible. It is just such a bad bill.

No. I would like to ask the Democratic leader a question, if I might. What objection does he have against my amendment, which is a simple amendment which simply says if the State can provide adequate evidence to the EPA that it can burn or refine gasoline to meet clean air standards that it should not be required to use ethanol? What objection does he have to that?

Will the Senator yield on that point?

I thank the distinguished Democratic leader.

As I understood what he said, he said there is a waiver in the amendment. Well, indeed there is a waiver in the amendment. It is on page 12 of the amendment. It begins on line 12. I would like to read it:

The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of

Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy, may waive the

requirements of paragraph (2) in whole or in part on petition

by 1 or more States by reducing the national quantity of

renewable fuel required under paragraph (2)--

based on a determination by the Administrator, after public

notice and opportunity for comment, that implementation of

the requirement would severely harm the economy or

environment of a State, a region, or the United States; or

[secondly,] based on a determination by the Administrator,

after public notice and opportunity for comment, that there

is an inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to

meet the requirement.

There is no waiver if you can meet the clean air standards without a renewable fuel such as ethanol. There is no waiver in this amendment for that. And if you are so sure of the ground you stand on, why, for Heaven's sake, wouldn't you allow a waiver if we can demonstrate--this is a rhetorical question--if we can demonstrate to the EPA Administrator that, yes, California, through its formula, can reformulate gasoline to meet the Clean Air Act without either a 2 percent oxygenate requirement or a renewable fuel to the extent that we have here?

Also, since you are on the floor, I just want you to see what you are pressing upon California. As shown on this chart, this is the amount of ethanol we would have to use, and this is the amount of ethanol your amendment forces us to use.

I would appreciate finishing, if I might.

Yes. The Senator mentioned my support of a renewable portfolio standard. Indeed, I do support a renewable portfolio standard. But the renewable portfolio standard is essentially a percentage requirement that a State would use of renewable fuels,

such as wind, solar, biomass, et cetera. And California has elected to provide that 10 percent of its portfolio should be in wind, solar, biomass, et cetera. I have supported that requirement in this amendment as well, and California is able to do it, and has been doing it. I think that is an extraordinarily positive thing.

I have great concerns about ethanol because I do not think all of the science has been completed on ethanol. We know ethanol produces a benzene plume which can break away in the ground if the fuel leaks from an underground--the minority leader is smiling, but I wonder if this same discussion took place when MTBE was introduced and people thought it was going to be just fine. It has polluted about 20,000 wells in California and has shown to have a significant hazard.

Now, I think to dismiss this as being wonderful for the environment is not quite correct because we know it reduces some components, but we also know it increases other components in the air that produce smog and ozone. And California has two of the most difficult nonattainment regions in the United States, one of them being the Los Angeles area, the other being the Fresno area. I don't know whether this requirement will, in fact, result in California's two difficult areas increasing in smog, but I do think that providing flexibility to a manufacturer to be able to produce reformulated fuels that meet the requirements is important.

The other thing that is of concern to me, since we are on this, is the safe harbor provision. I know my colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer, is going to offer an amendment that would remove the safe harbor. The American Petroleum Association, as they have indicated to me, agreed to support this largely because they were protected from any liability.

My understanding is, there is a provision in the amendment offered by the two leaders that would shield ethanol producers and refiners from any liability if the fuel additive harms the environment or public health. Candidly, I find this safe harbor provision astonishing. Ethanol is subsidized by the Government, protected from foreign competition by high trade barriers, and now, on top of mandating its use, we are going to exempt the fuel additive from liability in this amendment. This is unconscionable, and I think it is egregious public policy to mandate ethanol into our fuel supply in the first place and, even worse, to provide it with a complete liability protection before scientific and health experts can fully investigate the impact of tripling ethanol in the air we breathe and the water we drink.

As I said, this is exactly the mistake we made with MTBE. Over the past several years, we have learned that MTBE has contaminated our water and may, in fact, be a human carcinogen.

Last fall, a California jury found that there was clear and convincing evidence that three major oil companies acted with malice by polluting ground water at Lake Tahoe with MTBE because the gasoline they sold was defective in design and there was failure to warn of its pollution hazard.

After a 5-month trial, Shell Oil and Lyondell Chemical Company were found guilty of withholding information on the dangers of MTBE. The firms settled with the South Lake Tahoe Water District for $69 million. This case demonstrates why we cannot surrender the rights of citizens to hold polluters accountable for the harm they inflict. Yet this amendment has a safe harbor provision, and if I should be right, and if there should be--and I hope there are not--undue environmental or health consequences from this mandate, consumers cannot use their right to go to court to find justice.

So I do not know how those who favor this legislation can exempt the ethanol industry from this kind of wrongdoing. It is not as if the industry has not had some wrongdoing in the past. So I urge everyone--I know my colleague is going to move this amendment that would remove the safe harbor provision, and I certainly intend to support her in doing so.

I still--although many other things have been proposed or said by the distinguished Democratic leader--I do not understand why he would have opposition to my amendment, why he would say that if the State can prove we can produce gasoline without a 2-percent requirement or without this ethanol mandate that meets clean air standards, we cannot get a waiver. That is all we are asking for, that opportunity to make a showing that that is the case. Yet the Democratic leader has produced a lot of other things but has not answered why there should not--if you are going to have an economic waiver and an environmental waiver--why you cannot have a waiver if a State can show that it does not need ethanol to maintain clean air standards.

So I think it is an eminently fair amendment, and I just have a hard time understanding why we would be so anxious to pass this kind of public policy that mandates on States a use when most people, I think, have derided and derogated mandates from the Federal Government.

I would like to make one more point. The last time I looked--and this may have changed--but California is almost up to 100 percent of its refining capacity. My understanding is, if you put ethanol in--probably not in the early years, but in the outyears--to the extent required, we will not have the refining capacity available to maintain this mandate with adequate gasoline.

California is predicted to have 50 million people by 2020. They drive. They use gasoline. And I very much worry that refining capacity, which is about 98 percent at the present time because MTBE minimizes gasoline and ethanol requires added gasoline per gallon, that we really won't have the refining capacity. And that will create another problem for California.

I am hopeful the Democratic leader would see his way clear to allowing California and other States that wish to try to submit a case to the EPA, to say we can refine gasoline to meet clean air standards with flexibility and without this mandate, the opportunity to do so.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

It is. While the Democratic leader is still on the floor, I would like to address his comment about California's support, theoretically, which I don't think is correct. I address it with a letter from the California Environmental Protection Agency. California is very eager to get out from under the 2-percent oxygenate requirement. Just to sum up this last paragraph of an April 7 letter from Mr. Winston Hickox, the agency Secretary, it says:

Some have suggested that California should go along with

the safe harbor as a small price to pay for elimination of

the 2 percent mandate.

I disagree. Such a tradeoff makes no logical sense.

Elimination of the costly and unnecessary oxygenate

requirement has nothing to do with assuring that the State of

California has a full array of enforcement and restitution

options available to address MTBE-caused pollution problems.

In short, I do not support a tradeoff that puts at risk the

health of the citizens of the State.

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

Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The amendment would give the right to the Governors of States to opt into the program.

A second degree to the Frist-Daschle amendment, yes.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, this second-degree amendment to the first-degree ethanol

amendment would require the Governor of each State to opt into the ethanol mandate. Senators Nickles, McCain, Kyl, Gregg, Wyden, Leahy, Schumer, Reed, and Sununu are cosponsors of this amendment. I thank them for their support.

The pending first-degree ethanol amendment mandates 5 billion gallons of ethanol into our fuel supply by 2012, yet it exempts Alaska and Hawaii from this nationwide mandate. I strongly believe that each State should have this choice.

In the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Murkowski offered an amendment to the ethanol mandate to exempt Alaska and Hawaii from the requirement because, first, Alaska and Hawaii are a great distance from the Midwest, where 99 percent of the ethanol is produced in the United States; secondly, families and businesses in Alaska and Hawaii would have to pay exorbitant costs for ethanol to be shipped to these States and blended into their gasoline.

I have the same concerns about increased fuel costs to families and businesses in California if the ethanol mandate becomes law. I am sure other Senators up and down the east and west coasts have the same concerns I do.

Because moisture causes ethanol to separate from gasoline, the fuel additive cannot be shipped through traditional gasoline pipelines. Ethanol needs to be transported separately by truck, boat, or rail, and blended into gasoline after arrival. Unfortunately, this makes the 1- to 2- to 3-week delivery time from the Midwest to either coast dependent upon good weather conditions as well as available ships, trucks, and trains equipped to handle large amounts of ethanol.

According to Steve Larson, former executive director of the California Energy Commission:

The adequacy of logistics to deliver large volumes of

ethanol to [California] on a consistent basis is uncertain.

In sum, it will be extremely costly to ship large amounts of ethanol to California and other States.

I believe every State outside the Midwest will have to grapple with how to bring ethanol to their States since the Midwest controls 99 percent of the production. Last year, the General Accounting Office indicated how unequal the effects of the mandate will be across the Nation. As the GAO reported:

Ethanol imports from other regions are vital. However, any

potential price spike could be exacerbated if it takes too

long for supplies from out-of-State (primarily the Midwest,

where virtually all of the production capacity is located).

Mr. President, on the issue of increased costs, let me quote from a Wall Street Journal editorial that ran last year:

If consumers think the Federal gas tax is ugly, this new

ethanol tax will give them shudders. Moving ethanol to places

outside the Midwest involves big shipping fees or building

new capacity. Refiners also face costs in adding ethanol to

their products. According to independent consultant Hart

Downstream Energy Services, the mandate would cost consumers

an extra annual $8.4 billion at the pump the first 5 years.

New York and California would see gas prices rise by 7 to 10

cents a gallon.

So Hart Downstream Energy Services is estimating an annual $8.4 billion increase cost at the pump over the first 5 years. They are saying that New York and California would see gas prices rise by 7 to 10 cents a gallon. Therefore, any shortfall in supply, either because of manipulation or raw market forces, will be exacerbated on the west and the east coasts, which will be reliant on ethanol coming from another region of the United States. Are we not just asking for trouble by mandating ethanol nationwide if it is produced almost entirely in one region?

The fraud and manipulation that went into the California energy market 2 years ago wasn't expected, nor did anyone ever believe it would happen. But it did. I think there is a problem when you concentrate too much control in either one region or in one producer. As you know, this bill does both. The largest production center is the Midwest, and the largest producer is Archer Daniels Midland, and they produce 46 percent of the supply. This sets up a scenario that leads to the concern, I believe, of both coasts about this mandate.

Since Alaska and Hawaii have an exemption in the ethanol mandate, why not give other States the opportunity to choose whether they want to enter the program? Why not give this choice to California, Oregon, Washington, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida? These are States that are far from the Midwest but where families and businesses will have to pay more for gasoline under the ethanol mandate.

This ethanol mandate forces ethanol into our fuel supply nationwide, and under the credit trading provisions of the mandate, if States do not use the ethanol, they have to pay for it anyway. This really adds insult to injury. If you do not use it, you have to pay for it anyway. What kind of public policy is that?

Additionally, forcing States to use ethanol they do not need and forcing States to pay for ethanol they do not use amounts to a transfer of wealth from all States to the midwest corn States.

Remember, ethanol is not necessary to achieve cleaner air. For California, the ethanol mandate will force more ethanol into our fuel supply than we actually need to achieve clean air. Once again, I will show you that chart because the cumulative answer to this chart is that it forces California to use 2.5 billion gallons of ethanol it does not need over 8 years, and that is fact.

If the ethanol amendment proves itself, if it cleans the air and does not pollute the air with increased ozone or smog and if it is cost effective, Governors will want to include their States. In fact, I believe most States in the Midwest will opt into the ethanol mandate because that is where 99 percent of the ethanol is produced.

The belief is there are 69 votes to support this ethanol mandate in this House. If that is true, what are they worried about? We would have 34 or 35 States automatically opting in. Why not give those few States that have real concerns and want out of the 2-percent oxygenate mandate and also out of the ethanol mandate the opportunity to show that they can reformulate gasoline to meet clean air standards without the amount that is prescribed upon them by this mandate?

This year we saw retail gasoline prices across the U.S. In the United States, retail gas prices rose from $1.44 to $1.73 per gallon over the first 10 weeks of this year. California's gasoline prices rose even more precipitously than across the United States, climbing from $1.58 a gallon on January 1 to a record setting $2.15 a gallon on March 17.

I recall on a recent weekend during that period when I was in the State, I actually paid, for the first time in my life, $50 for a tankful of nonpremium gasoline.

Since the middle of March, gasoline prices have decreased largely due to the decrease in the price of crude oil since the war in Iraq has ended. But gasoline in my State still sells for around $1.80. That is still up 30 cents from the beginning of the year.

One reason prices are so high is that the 1990 Clean Air Act required States to use fuel additives, called oxygenates, that we no longer need to achieve cleaner air. This ethanol mandate offered by the majority and minority leaders will only trade one bad requirement, the 2-percent oxygenate requirement, for another, the ethanol mandate, because now we will be mandating 5 billion gallons of ethanol into our fuel supply.

Since there are high costs for States, such as California, to comply with any mandated Federal requirement, and these costs are passed on, as we all know, to drivers at the pump, the ethanol mandate amounts effectively to a hidden gas tax, and I think consumers should know that. In fact, when we pass this mandate, not only are we passing subsidies for the industry, not only are we mandating its use, but we are also providing a gas tax raise.

Instead of mandating 5 billion gallons of ethanol into our fuel supply, we should be lifting all mandates, or at least allow the Governor of a State to opt in to this mandate if that State wishes to. We need to provide flexibility to refiners for them to optimize how and what they blend instead of forcing them to blend gasoline with either MTBE or ethanol.

Without eliminating these mandates, we can expect disruptions and price spikes during the peak driving months of this summer, on top of the high price motorists are already paying.

Bob Slaughter, the president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, wrote in a letter to all Senators last week:

Forcing ethanol's use throughout the Nation will reduce

flexibility in this Nation's gasoline manufacturing and

distribution system, raise environmental concerns in ozone

control areas--

For me, that is the Los Angeles area and the Fresno Central Valley area--

and will result in increased costs. And this is in addition

to the fact that the product is uneconomic without the very

significant Federal subsidies--a total of roughly $10

billion--it has received for 25 years.

This is not me saying this. This is the president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association pointing out that ethanol to date has received roughly a $10 billion subsidy which this bill, of course, continues, and increases.

Proponents of the ethanol mandate argue that gas price increases will be minimal, but their projections do not take into consideration the real-world infrastructure constraints and concentration in the market that I have just pointed out on this chart--concentration in the marketplace that could lead to price spikes. If I have ever seen a scenario that lends itself to control of the marketplace and to potential antitrust violations, it is this one.

Just look at the disparity. It is not spread out evenly: 46 percent for one company; Williams, 6 percent; Cargill, 5 percent; High Plains Corporation, 4 percent; New Energy Corporation, 4 percent; Midwest Grain, 3 percent; and Chief Ethanol, 3 percent. If I have ever seen a scenario for market concentration, it is this one.

The second-degree amendment I have offered will require the Governor of a State to opt into the ethanol mandate. If the amendment offered by the two leaders is so fine, so good, so beneficial for all of America, then Governors should want to include their States.

The Senators from Alaska and Hawaii have worked to allow their States to be exempted from this mandate. That is the first break in the dike. They said they did not even want to try it. I believe, and the cosponsors of this amendment believe, each and every State should have this choice.

If this program, as put forward by the leaders, is so fine, the Governors will opt in. If they believe it enables their State to have cleaner air, the Governors will opt in. If they believe they can produce the adequate infrastructure, the Governors will opt in. If they believe they want to see the tariff protection, the subsidies, the potential taxes at the pump, their Governor will opt in. But to force it on a State, when that State does not require it, when it can meet the clean air standards in another way, I believe is wrong-headed and short-sighted public policy.

I urge my colleagues to support this second-degree amendment.

Before I yield the floor, I remind the Chair I have offered two separate amendments, the EPA waiver first and the State opt-in as a second freestanding amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support the second-degree amendment I offered this morning to the pending first- degree ethanol mandate that would provide authority to the Administrator of the EPA to waive the ethanol mandate if a State or a region does not need it to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

In the pending first-degree ethanol mandate, there is waiver language, and that waiver language allows the Administrator of the EPA to waive the ethanol mandate if it would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United States.

I believe the EPA Administrator should also have the ability to waive the mandate if a State can show that it can meet the Clean Air Act standards without having to use ethanol. I think that is very important because all the refiners in my State tell me that if we allow them flexibility, they can, through the reformulated model of our gasoline, for the most part, meet Clean Air Act standards without this mandate. They may have to use some ethanol--and they are using ethanol now because there is a 2-percent oxygenate requirement--they may have to use some ethanol at certain times of the year in certain areas of the State, but they do not need to use the amount of ethanol that this legislation forces them--forces them, Mr. President--to use to meet the Clean Air Act standards.

This mandate forces California to use over 2.5 billion gallons of ethanol over 8 years that the State does not need.

On this chart, the red shows the forced use of ethanol. The blue shows the ethanol we would use in certain markets during certain seasons to meet Clean Air Act standards. As one can see, there is a huge differential between the red and the blue areas.

We use this amount shown in blue and do not use the rest of the ethanol which is shown in red which we have to pay for anyway. That is a wealth transfer, if you will. In the outer years, it most certainly is going to mean an increased price of gasoline at the pump for consumers.

All this amendment does is add to the waiver provision one other possibility for waiver, and that is, if a State can show that it does not need to use all of this extra ethanol to the EPA, the EPA can then waive the mandate. What could make better sense? Why would anyone oppose this as a matter of public policy? Why would any public policy force use and force costs on a consumer and transfer wealth to another area of the country when it is not necessary to do so? That is the crux of my argument. We do not need to use it. This chart clearly shows it.

If we look at another chart, we will see that we are forced to transport a lot of ethanol to get it out to California; that the big production of ethanol is in the Midwest in what is called PADD II. Mr. President, 2.27 billion gallons of ethanol are made in this area. The entire West makes maybe 10 million gallons of ethanol. Therefore, all of this has to be moved not by fuel line but by barge, by truck, by boat, by some other way, and increases costs. That is the reason for the waiver. If we can show that we can meet Clean Air Act standards, EPA can give those States a waiver.

I thank the Chair. I gather my time is up. I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I will just use a minute and then cede some of the remaining minute to the Senator from Arizona, if I might.

Mr. President, this amendment would allow a Governor of a State to opt into the ethanol program. Both Alaska and Hawaii have been able to become exempted from the ethanol mandate. The question this presents for many of us is this: If a Governor of a State believes the program is cost effective, believes it is going to clean up their environment, believes it is all of the things the ethanol proponents say it is, then surely that Governor will opt in.

But if a Governor of a State, depending upon geographical location, infrastructure for delivery, or science about the product, might decide not to opt into the program, that Governor would have that opportunity. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Nickles, McCain, Kyl, Gregg, Wyden, Leahy, Schumer, Reed, Sununu, Kennedy, and Clinton.

I thank them for their support and yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the final version of the reconciliation bill, which has emerged from conference committee.

Last week I came to this floor to express my opposition to the tax cut which emerged from the Senate. And I believe that the bill which passed the House was no better. Unfortunately, this conference report has even less to recommend it than either of those bills.

This bill will add an additional $350 billion to our deficit over the next 5 years, all of which will be paid for by future generations of taxpayers. Even worse, it contains so many sunsets and phase-outs that it makes a mockery of our tax code.

Some provisions last only through the end of next year and others phase out in each subsequent year, until the whole tax cut is finished by the end of 2008. This bill is a patchwork quilt of temporary cuts and provides neither short-term stimulus nor long-term structural tax relief. Indeed, all it provides is a great deal of uncertainty to the average American taxpayer.

Rather than view the reluctance of the Senate to pass a large tax cut as a sign of concern over our historic federal budget deficits, the conferees used a grab-bag of tricks to stuff a $1.1 trillion tax cut into a $350 billion package. Many of those cuts are likely to become permanent, which will further increase deficits and the federal debt.

Quite frankly, I am not fooled by this slight of hand, and I am sure that the average American will not be either.

By lowering tax rates on both dividends and capital gains, the Conferees ensured that this bill is even more regressive than the President's original proposal, because capital gains income is skewed even more to the wealthiest Americans than dividend income.

Between now and 2006, the period during which the majority of the tax cuts are in effect, 54 percent of the tax cuts will go to the 5 percent of Americans who earn over $150,000 annually. The top one percent of Americans, who earn an average of just over $1 million annually, will take away 37 percent of the tax cuts.

In those areas that count most, this bill provides very little relief. It provides $20 billion in state aid, which is a start, but which is much less than the $40 billion which is required to have a meaningful impact on state budget deficits, which in many cases have reached crisis proportions.

At the same time, this bill strips out a provision in the Senate- passed bill which would accelerate the refundability of the Child Tax Credit for families earning $10,000 to $30,000 per year. In fact, 29 percent of married and head of household filers will receive no tax cut in 2003 under the bill, while higher-earning families will receive a $400 rebate check this year.

And this bill preserves the most regressive portion of the tax cut-- the cut to taxes on dividends and capital gains--through 2008, while cuts targeted at middle income families, such as marriage penalty relief, are only provided for 2 years.

Mr. President, this tax cut makes no sense--no sense at all. It provides little benefit to those taxpayers who are likely to generate new consumer demand, and instead boosts the income of wealthy taxpayers who will spend little if any of it on goods or services.

Keep in mind that the 2001 tax cuts are only now coming into full effect. In June of 2001, I voted in favor of a $1.35 trillion tax cut, which remains the largest tax cut in history. That tax cut will return $300 billion to American taxpayers by the end of next year, and will provide $90 billion in tax relief this year alone.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers, who will receive 37 percent of the benefits included in the Reconciliation bill, are already scheduled to receive an average of $11,300 in tax relief this year.

There is simply no reason to add another tax cut on top of what was already the largest cut in history, particularly when every dollar in tax cuts must be paid for by new debt.

Gross Federal debt currently stands at $6.7 trillion. If the provisions in this tax cut are permanently extended, as this Administration intends, then our federal debt will rise to $12 trillion by the end of the decade.

The President claimed that any deficits created by his fiscal policy would be ``small and short-term.'' It does not take an accountant to understand that the deficits now projected by the Congressional Budget Office are neither small, nor short-term, and, in fact, will not fall below $300 billion before 2013, if the Social Security surplus is excluded.

Our on-budget deficit in 2003 alone will exceed $500 billion. That means that nearly one-quarter of our $2.2 trillion in gross Federal spending is financed through deficit spending. There is nothing cyclical about a deficit of one-quarter of your total spending--rather, it is a structural deficit that cannot be sustained.

Deficits of the magnitude we are now incurring will drive up long- term interest rates and stifle economic growth.

If you or I were to walk into a bank and ask for a loan, and we told our bank officer that we expected to earn $30,000 per year for the next decade, but spend $40,000 per year over the same period, we would be laughed out of the building. But that is exactly what our Federal Government is now planning to do.

This is unconscionable, and this is why I have voted against this tax bill.

The fact that, later today, we must vote to increase the Federal debt limit stands as a clear indication of the very grave fiscal straits in which we now find ourselves.

It has taken just 2 years to squander our hard won budget surplus, and we are forced to vote to increase the debt limit because this administration, along with this Congress, are placing irresponsible tax cuts ahead of fiscal discipline and common sense.

In this year's State of the Union message, President Bush stated: ``We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other

Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations.''

Well, Mr. President, by voting to increase our debt limit, we are now handling an additional $984 billion dollar debt as our gift to those future generations.

This is why I am voting for an amendment offered by Senator Baucus that would increase the Federal debt limit by $350 billion, an amount which will ease the current pressure on our Treasury but force us to review our fiscal policy within the next 9 months.

This, to me, is the prudent course given our current fiscal straits. To increase the debt limit by $984 billion all at once is to write ourselves a 2 year free pass at the expense of regular review. It is, without question, the wrong thing to do.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bob Hope American Patriot Award Act of 2003. This legislation would create a presidential commemorative award for an individual or organization that demonstrates ``extraordinary love of this Nation and devotion to its citizens in the form of true patriotism.''

In addition, this legislation would honor one of the most respected figures in America, who for seven decades has served our Nation with his talents in entertainment. As many are familiar, I am speaking today of Bob Hope.

To celebrate Bob Hope's 100th birthday on May 29, 2003, this legislation would give the President the opportunity to annually recognize the wonderful trait of ``patriotism,'' so well exemplified by Hope throughout his lifetime. Mr. Hope has long demonstrated that entertainment can positively influence ``love of country and dedication to the spiritual well-being of America's troops.''

A master of the skills of acting and singing, Bob Hope may be the most talented and prolific entertainer of our time. Many of us will recall his work in the series of ``Road'' films with Bing Crosby and Dorothy Lamour. His expansive career has involved stage musical comedy, motion pictures, and live appearances at the USO shows.

On May 6, 1941, Bob Hope began a 50-year service with the United States Armed Forces, in which he did approximately 60 USO tours. He has toured

U.S. military stations all over the world, including Germany, the South Pacific, and Vietnam. Veterans and U.S. soldiers alike will always remember his variety shows, which included skits, dancers, specialty acts, and comedic monologues. These monologues were particularly touching as they commiserated with the daily travails of a soldier's life.

Over the years, Bob Hope has received well-deserved recognition for his dedication to our Nation. He has been honored with numerous awards, including the Congressional Gold Medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Distinguished Service Medal from each of the branches of the military. Several years ago, I co-sponsored legislation naming him an Honorary Veteran for his humanitarian services to the U.S. Armed Forces.

Bob Hope epitomizes true patriotism and service to our country, and I cannot think of anybody better to name this new award after.

This legislation is important because it would not only carry on the name of such an honorable figure, but would recognize future individuals or organizations who have dedicated themselves to promoting the values of freedom, democracy, and goodwill. This award would be the first of its kind--honoring American civilians specifically for patriotism.

This legislation would give the President the authority to annually select either one individual or one organization to receive this commemorative award at a White House ceremony. The President would also be given the power to interpret the selection criteria and determine the form that the award would take, such as a plaque, medal or flag.

I believe this legislation is timely and befitting of both Mr. Hope and the great citizens of our Nation. In these challenging times, it is important to encourage and recognize Americans who have given so much to the cause of patriotism, asking for nothing in return.

My hope is that this award, established through this legislation, will both carry on the wonderful legacy of Bob Hope and bring awareness to the magnanimous spirit of our fellow citizens. I call on this body to enact this legislation promptly.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bob Hope American Patriot Award Act of 2003. This legislation would create a presidential commemorative award for an individual or organization that demonstrates ``extraordinary love of this Nation and devotion to its citizens in the form of true patriotism.''

In addition, this legislation would honor one of the most respected figures in America, who for seven decades has served our Nation with his talents in entertainment. As many are familiar, I am speaking today of Bob Hope.

To celebrate Bob Hope's 100th birthday on May 29, 2003, this legislation would give the President the opportunity to annually recognize the wonderful trait of ``patriotism,'' so well exemplified by Hope throughout his lifetime. Mr. Hope has long demonstrated that entertainment can positively influence ``love of country and dedication to the spiritual well-being of America's troops.''

A master of the skills of acting and singing, Bob Hope may be the most talented and prolific entertainer of our time. Many of us will recall his work in the series of ``Road'' films with Bing Crosby and Dorothy Lamour. His expansive career has involved stage musical comedy, motion pictures, and live appearances at the USO shows.

On May 6, 1941, Bob Hope began a 50-year service with the United States Armed Forces, in which he did approximately 60 USO tours. He has toured

U.S. military stations all over the world, including Germany, the South Pacific, and Vietnam. Veterans and U.S. soldiers alike will always remember his variety shows, which included skits, dancers, specialty acts, and comedic monologues. These monologues were particularly touching as they commiserated with the daily travails of a soldier's life.

Over the years, Bob Hope has received well-deserved recognition for his dedication to our Nation. He has been honored with numerous awards, including the Congressional Gold Medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Distinguished Service Medal from each of the branches of the military. Several years ago, I co-sponsored legislation naming him an Honorary Veteran for his humanitarian services to the U.S. Armed Forces.

Bob Hope epitomizes true patriotism and service to our country, and I cannot think of anybody better to name this new award after.

This legislation is important because it would not only carry on the name of such an honorable figure, but would recognize future individuals or organizations who have dedicated themselves to promoting the values of freedom, democracy, and goodwill. This award would be the first of its kind--honoring American civilians specifically for patriotism.

This legislation would give the President the authority to annually select either one individual or one organization to receive this commemorative award at a White House ceremony. The President would also be given the power to interpret the selection criteria and determine the form that the award would take, such as a plaque, medal or flag.

I believe this legislation is timely and befitting of both Mr. Hope and the great citizens of our Nation. In these challenging times, it is important to encourage and recognize Americans who have given so much to the cause of patriotism, asking for nothing in return.

My hope is that this award, established through this legislation, will both carry on the wonderful legacy of Bob Hope and bring awareness to the magnanimous spirit of our fellow citizens. I call on this body to enact this legislation promptly.

May I have 5 minutes?

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from Washington. I think she is doing a great service to the women of our country in pointing out what the problem is here.

I was sitting in my office doing work, and I heard the statement that this is abortion on demand. I thought it might be useful for me to read into the Record one letter I received last year from a woman on this very subject that indicates the difficulty of the circumstances women can find themselves in while living overseas.

I am about to read the story of Holly Webb. Holly is the wife of a staff sergeant in the Air Force stationed in Misawa, Japan. I would like you to hear her story:

My husband was stationed in Misawa, Japan, and I moved over

in September 2001 to join him. I was pregnant for the first

time. Prior to my arrival in Japan, I felt like something was

wrong with my pregnancy, and at 6 weeks I went to the

emergency room at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida where

we had been stationed.

My doctor there told me that everything seemed OK from what

they could tell. At 16 weeks, I was in Japan with my husband,

and I started bleeding. I would bleed weekly for 5 days and

then the bleeding would subside. I went to the military

hospital at Misawa and they told me I had a placenta previa

and that this was a normal side effect and they sent me home.

Just so everybody knows, placenta previa is a serious problem some women confront which can impact their pregnancy. It can cause severe problems for the woman including hemorrhaging both during delivery and post-partum.

Continuing the letter:

At 20 weeks, I started bleeding heavily, and I went back to

the hospital. I thought that my water had broken but the

hospital told me it was not an emergency and kept me

overnight. My OB/GYN did not visit me until the next morning.

They told me that the results of my triple screen blood test

showed possible spina bifida which necessitated an

ultrasound. When they did the ultrasound, they discovered, as

I had thought, that there was no amniotic fluid surrounding

the fetus. They were unable to detect whether or not the

fetus had spina bifida.

For the next day, I was administered IV fluids, and my

doctor mentioned that I might be dehydrated. My cervix

remained closed, however, and they told me there was still a

fetal heartbeat. I was told I might deliver spontaneously

within weeks or months, but if the baby survived, it would

have serious health complications due to the fact I was at

risk for infection as well and because there was no amniotic

fluid surrounding the baby.

When I asked the hospital what my options were, they told

me they could not induce labor or dilate my cervix to deliver

because it would be considered an abortion, but that I was at

risk for infection. My doctor told me that in order to have

an abortion, they would have to have my situation reviewed by

a medical board and that she didn't know how long this would

take. She told me that during her 7 or 8 years of practice in

a military hospital, no matter what the situation was, a

woman's request for an abortion was always denied.

My doctor told me the only way I could receive additional

medical treatment was if I became ill. I was told to go home

and monitor my temperature and to return when I had a

fever or was in pain. I asked if there was any other

option because I was worried about dying.

At that point, I felt like my choices were either to go

home and wait for a life-threatening infection so that my

labor could be induced or go to an outside hospital where I

didn't speak the language and could not be sure that the

treatment would be safe.

When I got to the private Japanese hospital, the doctor

told me there was a serious risk for infection and that he

needed to put me on antibiotics immediately. If I didn't get

antibiotics through IV immediately, I would die. I contacted

my grandmother in the United States who wired me $2,000 to

pay for the hospital visit.

I checked into the hospital about 4 hours later. They

dilated my cervix over a period of 2\1/2\ days and induced

labor. I delivered a stillborn baby. The military hospital

told me that this was an elected abortion and not a stillborn

birth.

I am now 17 weeks pregnant again, and my only option is to

use the military hospital

for my OB/GYN treatment. I have begged them to let me off the

base to go to a private doctor because of my experience last

year. I believe that my pregnancy puts my health at risk. I

would again be prevented from making decisions I need to

about my pregnancy.

I thank the Chair. Let me just make a point.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, this is just one example of what a women living abroad might go through. We can think of all kinds of other situations in foreign countries that might necessitate the termination of a pregnancy. Many of these women are living in countries that don't have good health care systems in place, skilled providers, or access to safe or clean hospitals.

This ban is a huge mistake. It is in fact a double standard. I do not know of a health situation a man could encounter that would be dealt with at a military hospital in quite the same manner. Nor do I know of a health situation a man could encounter that a military hospital would not treat.

I thank the Senator from Washington for her amendment and for her leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senators Murray and Snowe to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill to repeal the ban on privately funded abortions sought by U.S. servicewomen, spouses, and dependents in military hospitals overseas.

The Supreme Court acknowledges a woman's right to choose as a constitutionally protected freedom. That right is not suspended simply because a woman serves in the U.S. military or is married to a U.S. service member and living overseas.

Women based in the United States and using a U.S.-based military facility are not prohibited from using their own funds to pay for an abortion. Having a prohibition on the use of U.S. military facilities overseas creates a double standard, and discriminates against women service members stationed overseas.

Banning privately funded abortions on military bases endangers a woman's health. Service members and their dependents rely on their military base hospitals for medical care. Private facilities may not be readily available in other countries.

For example, abortion is illegal in the Philippines. A woman stationed in that country or the spouse of a service member would need to fly to the U.S. or to another country--at her own expense--to obtain an abortion. We don't pay our service members enough to assume they can simply jet off to Switzerland for medical treatment.

If women do not have access to military facilities or to private facilities in the country they are stationed, they could endanger their own health by the delay involved in getting to a facility or by being forced to seek an abortion by someone other than a licensed physician.

We know from personal experience in this country that when abortion is illegal, desperate women are often forced into unsafe and life- threatening situations. If it were your wife, or your daughter, would you want her in the hands of an untrained abortionist on the back streets of Manila or Argentina? Or would you prefer that she have access to medical treatment by a trained physician in a U.S. military facility?

Not only would these women be risking their health and lives under normal conditions, but what if these women are facing complicated or life-threatening pregnancies and are unaware of the seriousness of their condition?

The ban on privately funded abortions on military bases overseas affects more than 100,000 active service members, spouses, and dependents of military personnel.

One such woman this ban impacts is Holly Webb.

Holly Webb is the wife of a staff sergeant in the Air Force stationed in Misawa, Japan. She tells the following story of her struggle to find adequate reproductive health care overseas:

My husband was stationed in Misawa Japan, and I moved over

in September 2001 to join him. I was pregnant for the first

time. Prior to my arrival in Japan, I felt like something was

wrong with my pregnancy and at 6 weeks I went to the

emergency room at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida where

we had been stationed.

My doctor there told me that everything seemed OK from what

they could tell. At 16 weeks I was in Japan with my

husband and I started bleeding. I would bleed weekly for 5

days and then the bleeding would subside. I went to the

military hospital at Misawa and they told me I had

placenta previa and that this was a normal side effect and

they sent me home.

At 20 weeks, I started bleeding heavily and went back to

the hospital. I thought that my water had broken but the

hospital told me that it was not an emergency and kept me

overnight. My ob/gyn did not visit me until the next morning.

They told me that the results of my triple screen blood test

showed possible spina bifida which necessitated an

ultrasound. When they did the ultrasound they discovered, as

I had thought, that there was no amniotic fluid surrounding

the fetus.

They were unable to detect whether or not the fetus had

spina bifida. For the next day I was administered IV fluids

and my doctor mentioned that I might be dehydrated. My cervix

remained closed, however, and they told me that there was

still a fetal heartbeat. I was told that I might deliver

spontaneously within weeks or months, but that if the baby

survived, it would have serious health complications due to

the fact that I was at risk for infection as well as because

there was no amniotic fluid surrounding the baby.

When I asked the hospital what my options were they told me

that they could not induce labor or dilate my cervix to

deliver because it would be considered an abortion but that I

was at risk for infection. My doctor told me that in order to

have an abortion, they would have to have my situation

reviewed by a medical board and that she didn't know how long

this would take.

She told me that during her 7 or 8 years of practice in a

military hospital, no matter what the situation was, a

woman's request for an abortion was always denied.

My doctor told me that the only way I could receive

additional medical treatment was if I became ill. I was told

to go home and monitor my temperature and to return when I

had a fever or was in pain. I asked if there was any other

option because I was worried about dying.

At that point, I felt like my choices were either to go

home and wait for a life-threatening infection so that my

labor could be induced, or to go to an outside hospital,

where I didn't speak the language and could not be sure that

the treatment would be safe.

When I got to the private Japanese hospital, the doctor

told me that there was serious risk for infection, and that

he needed to put me on antibiotics immediately and that if I

did not get antibiotics through IV immediately I would very

likely die. I contacted my grandmother in the U.S. who wired

me $2,000 to pay for the hospital visit.

I checked into the hospital about 4 hours later. They

dilated my cervix over a period of 2\1/2\ days, then induced

labor. I delivered a stillborn baby. The military hospital

told me that this was an elected abortion and not a stillborn

birth.

I am now 17 weeks pregnant again and my only option is to

use the military hospital for my ob/gyn treatment. I have

begged them to let me off the base to go to a private doctor

because of my experience last year. I believe that if my

pregnancy puts my health at risk, I would again be prevented

from making the decisions I need to about my pregnancy.

I hope that we have learned something from Mrs. Webb's story. No woman should have to go through the obstacles Mrs. Webb faced. If Mrs. Webb had been living in the U.S. she would have had a choice. She could have gotten an abortion and avoided the emotional trauma associated with giving birth to a stillborn, and not had to put her own life at risk.

Current law does not force any military physician to perform an abortion against his or her will. All branches have a conscience clause that permits medical personnel to choose not to perform the procedure. A doctor can simply say, ``I won't perform such a procedure.'' And then that woman must just find another doctor.

What we are talking about today is providing equal access to military medical facilities, wherever they are located, for a legal procedure paid for with one's own money.

Abortion is legal for American women. These women would pay for the service with their own funds. This amendment does not involve the use of federal funding.

We ask these service members to risk their lives in the service of their country but we are not willing to grant them access to the same services they would receive if they were stationed in the U.S. This is especially troubling since September 11 since more Americans have decided to serve their country.

Service members and their dependents must have access to safe, legal, and comprehensive reproductive health care.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Justice Callahan to go from the California State appellate court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This woman was really born in Senator Boxer's and my backyard. She is a Bay area person. She was born in Palo Alto. She attended Stanford, graduated with honors, attended the University of the Pacific McGeorge Law School. She has been both a deputy city attorney and deputy district attorney. She founded the first child abuse unit in the DA's Office of San Joaquin County. In 1996 she was elevated to the State Court of Appeals from the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. She has served with distinction for the past 6 years, has extraordinarily strong support.

I certainly believe, and I believe Senator Boxer concurs in this, that she is going to be an excellent judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am delighted to support her and to recommend her and to vote for her.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to prevent unnecessary hardship for ranching families in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

This summer, restrictions imposed for the Yosemite Toad and willow flycatcher will force about fifteen to thirty ranchers off the land that they have long used for grazing.

This bill requires the Forest Service to explore all the options available to avoid this outcome. For example, the bill makes it easier for the Forest Service to offer ranchers suitable alternative grazing land.

Besides alternative grazing arrangements, the Forest Service should look at fencing, active management of the cattle, and other options. If none of these alternatives are feasible, the bill provides relief for the most seriously affected ranchers.

The bill would allow ranchers to keep using 15 parcels of land during this calendar year where Yosemite Toad and willow flycatcher restrictions would otherwise make grazing unworkable. For many other ranches, where grazing and the species could coexist with some adjustments, environmental protections would fully remain in place.

I urge the Forest Service to quickly devise a long-term strategy to promote the coexistence of ranchers and the species. The Forest Service should work proactively with the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a conservation plan for the species--with the goal of avoiding the need for any listing of it.

I believe that if the regulatory agencies collect better information on the Yosemite Toad and the willow flycatcher, we can find ways to protect the species without completely shutting down long-term ranching operations. I am committed to expediting these long-term solutions.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003,'' bipartisan legislation to reform the way the Federal Government treats unaccompanied alien children who are in Federal immigration custody. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Voinovich, Kennedy, Cantwell, DeWine, Feingold, and Lautenberg in introducing this important measure.

Approximately 5,000 foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. These children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population.

Many have often entered the country under traumatic circumstances. They are young and alone, subject to abuse and exploitation. They are often unable to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to their needs as accurately as adults can.

Despite these facts, U.S. Immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented without regard for their effect on children, particularly on unaccompanied alien children.

Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuances legal principles and procedures. Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very life-threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.

Prior to March 1, 2003, the Immigration Naturalization Service, INS, had responsibility for the care, custody, and treatment of unaccompanied alien children. Too often, the INS, fell short in fulfilling the protection side of these responsibilities.

The legislation that I am introducing today builds on Section 462 of Public Law 107-296, the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002'', which provided for the transfer of responsibility for the care

and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished INS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, within the Department of Health and Human Services. This provision was based on S. 121, comprehensive legislation relating to unaccompanied alien children that I introduced at the beginning of the 107th Congress.

With the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, we set into motion the centralization of responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children in the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The first phase of this transfer of responsibility occurred on March 1, 2003. Once the transition is completed, we have finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system.

I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was contained in the Homeland Security Act. Its inclusion in the new law was an important first step in reforming the way unaccompanied alien children are treated. It was a key provision for two reasons: First, it will help ensure that the Secretary of Homeland Security is not burdened with policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The new Department has a huge and important mission and its attention should be focused on that mission. Second, it recognizes that the Federal Government has a special responsibility to protect these children who are in federal custody. The INS did not always live up that responsibility.

But, the transfer of authority to the ORR--by itself--is not enough to ensure that these children are properly treated. Congress now has a responsibilty to go beyond the simple transfer and set the priorities for ORR and its new jurisdiction over unaccompanied foreign-born minors.

A number of other important reforms that were contained in last year's S. 121 were left out of the Homeland Security Act. Enactment of these reforms will be crucial if we truly are to reform the manner in which these children are treated. As I mentioned, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 builds on the Homeland Security Act in two ways: First, it would make a number of technical and conforming changes in law to bring about the smooth transfer of the INS's unaccompanied alien child-related functions to ORR. Second, it would make a number of more substantive reforms in law with respect the respect to the treatment of these children--reforms that are designed to ensure that such children are treated with fairness and compassion.

Other provisions include those that would keep children who are criminals or who pose a threat to national security under the custody of the Department of Homeland Security rather than transfer responsibility of them to the ORR.

I first became involved in this issue when I heard about a young 15- year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. immigration court facing deportation proceedings. She had found her way to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country.

She had been placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, fleeing China's rigid family planning laws, Under these laws, she was denied citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate.

And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? The INS detained her in a juvenile jail in Portland, OR, for 8 months before her asylum hearing, and 4 months after she was granted asylum.

At her asylum hearing, the young girl stood before a judge, unrepresented by counsel, confused, and unable to understand the proceedings against her. She could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to a lawyer who later came to represent her, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.''

While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl represents only one of 5,000 foreign-born children who, without parents or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States each year in need of protection. This, is unacceptable treatment. We have a responsibility to do better than this.

Central throughout the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 are two concepts: 1. The United States Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and 2. in all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a high priority protecting the interests of these children, most of whom are unable to understand the nature of the proceedings in which they are involved.

This bill would ensure that children who are apprehended by immigration authorities are treated humanely and appropriately by: ensuring that eligible unaccompanied alien children are promptly placed in the custody of Office of Refugee Resettlement after they are encountered by immigration officials; ensuring that the children have counsel to represent them in immigration proceedings and matters; authorizing the Director of ORR to provide guardians ad litem for the children to look after their interests; establishing clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody arrangements; establishing minimum standards for detention and alternative settings that take into account the special needs of children; improving such children's access to existing options for permanent protection when U.S. immigration and child welfare authorities believe such protection is warranted; setting forth procedures that immigration officers should follow when apprehending unaccompanied alien children at the United states border or at United States ports of entry; establishing procedures to ensure that the true age of an alien who claims to be under the age of 18 is determined; ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the Office of Refugee Resettlement, maintain custody over children who are either criminals or threats to national security; and establishing procedures to ensure that certain unaccompanied alien children from Mexico or Canada, encountered along the United States border, are returned to their homes, subject to formal agreements between the United States and those countries providing for their safe return without undue delay.

Without enactment of my legislation, none of these important parameters would be placed on the Office of Refugee Resettlement or the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill also includes provisions that provide for the safety of the significant number of unaccompanied alien children who are victims of smuggling or trafficking rings. For example, 2 years ago, Phanupong Khaisri, a 2-year old Thai child, was brought to the United States by two individuals falsely claiming to be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking ring.

The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain in the United States until the agency could provide proper medical attention and determine what course of action would be in his best interest.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent situations like this from recurring. Moreover, the legislation would ensure that children are released into safe and humane environments while awaiting a determination of their status when that is appropriate, and it would ensure that the children are protected from smugglers, traffickers, or others who might exploit them.

Further, it would require the ORR to take steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are protected from smugglers or others who may wish to do them harm, and authorizes reimbursement for State and local expenses associated with caring for unaccompanied alien children.

Children, even more than adults, have incredible difficulty understanding the complexities of the immigration system without the assistance of counsel. Despite this reality, most children in immigration custody are overlooked and unrepresented. Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to their home

countries where they may face further human rights abuses.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 20032 would require that all unaccompanied alien children in Federal custody by reason of their immigration status have counsel to represent them in any immigration proceedings involving them. It would vest in the Director of ORR responsibility for ensuring that the children have counsel, and it would provide the Director power to establish an infrastructure for developing a system to recruit and support pro bono counsel who can represent these children without cost to them or to the government.

It provides, as a last resort, that counsel could be provided for the children at government expense, capping the fees that such counsel could charge in the event that the government pays for such counsel.

This bill would authorize, but not mandate, the Director of ORR to put into place a system of guardians ad litem who would help the court in determining the best interests of children in U.S. custody.

The vast majority of unaccompanied alien children have been forced to maneuver the immigration system without any representation or without any assistance. This is unacceptable. It results in many children participating in a system without any understanding of the process they are undergoing or the ramifications of their situation.

Under this section, the guardian ad litem would not be working ``for the child.'' Nor would he or she be working for the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, he or she would be an impartial observer reporting to the court and to the Office of Refugee Resettlement on what he or she thinks is in the best interest of the child.

The guardians ad litem system could be modeled after any of a number of systems already existing in juvenile courts throughout the American juvenile justice system. This system is not a novel legal concept, but one that is trusted and already in place in every state in proceedings involving juveniles.

Imagine the fear of a foreign-born child, in the United States alone without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system she did not understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles with serious criminal convictions. Mr. President, I find it hard to believe that our country would have allowed innocent children to be treated in such a manner.

That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this legislation today. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children.

I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the American Bar Association, the United National High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals who live in the Fresno area of California.

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in he United States for nearly 20 years. They are the parents of Nayely and Cindy, who also stand to benefit from this legislation. The Arreolas also have three United States citizens children: Roberto, who is 11 year old; Daniel, who is 8; and Saray, their youngest daughter, who is six-years old. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola, and her children face deportation.

The story of the Arreola family is quite compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for humanitarian relief. The Arreolas are in uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the legal detriment he caused his immigrant clients.

Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program had he known that he could apply for it. Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth to Cindy to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It is quite likely that the family would have qualified for cancellation of removal but for the conduct of their previous attorney.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children: three of whom are U.S. citizens; the other two have lived in the United States virtually all of their lives. This country is the only the country they really know.

Nayely, the oldest child, is a junior in high school. She is an outstanding student with a 3.91 Grade Point Average who ranks fourth in her class of approximately 300 students. At her relatively young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community.

Nayely is a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely is also President of the key Club, a community service organization. She helps mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family if she is forced to return to Mexico will be her lost opportunity to realize here dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.

As the principal of her high school wrote, ``[s]he epitomizes what we seek to instill in all of our students. She has accepted the challenges and has made a commitment to better her future, to better her life, and to better herself through education.''

It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her fine family.

I understand that the Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents here in the United States. Mrs. Arreola also has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is my understanding that they do not have any family to whom they might return in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farmworker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community and to the United States as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of Xavier De La Torre, Principal of Granite Hills High School, as well as the numerous letters of support our office has received from members of the Porterville community be entered into the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Nayely's essay entitled ``If I Could Change the World,'' which she wrote at age 15, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to prevent unnecessary hardship for ranching families in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

This summer, restrictions imposed for the Yosemite Toad and willow flycatcher will force about fifteen to thirty ranchers off the land that they have long used for grazing.

This bill requires the Forest Service to explore all the options available to avoid this outcome. For example, the bill makes it easier for the Forest Service to offer ranchers suitable alternative grazing land.

Besides alternative grazing arrangements, the Forest Service should look at fencing, active management of the cattle, and other options. If none of these alternatives are feasible, the bill provides relief for the most seriously affected ranchers.

The bill would allow ranchers to keep using 15 parcels of land during this calendar year where Yosemite Toad and willow flycatcher restrictions would otherwise make grazing unworkable. For many other ranches, where grazing and the species could coexist with some adjustments, environmental protections would fully remain in place.

I urge the Forest Service to quickly devise a long-term strategy to promote the coexistence of ranchers and the species. The Forest Service should work proactively with the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a conservation plan for the species--with the goal of avoiding the need for any listing of it.

I believe that if the regulatory agencies collect better information on the Yosemite Toad and the willow flycatcher, we can find ways to protect the species without completely shutting down long-term ranching operations. I am committed to expediting these long-term solutions.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003,'' bipartisan legislation to reform the way the Federal Government treats unaccompanied alien children who are in Federal immigration custody. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Voinovich, Kennedy, Cantwell, DeWine, Feingold, and Lautenberg in introducing this important measure.

Approximately 5,000 foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. These children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population.

Many have often entered the country under traumatic circumstances. They are young and alone, subject to abuse and exploitation. They are often unable to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to their needs as accurately as adults can.

Despite these facts, U.S. Immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented without regard for their effect on children, particularly on unaccompanied alien children.

Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuances legal principles and procedures. Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very life-threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.

Prior to March 1, 2003, the Immigration Naturalization Service, INS, had responsibility for the care, custody, and treatment of unaccompanied alien children. Too often, the INS, fell short in fulfilling the protection side of these responsibilities.

The legislation that I am introducing today builds on Section 462 of Public Law 107-296, the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002'', which provided for the transfer of responsibility for the care

and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished INS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, within the Department of Health and Human Services. This provision was based on S. 121, comprehensive legislation relating to unaccompanied alien children that I introduced at the beginning of the 107th Congress.

With the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, we set into motion the centralization of responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children in the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The first phase of this transfer of responsibility occurred on March 1, 2003. Once the transition is completed, we have finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system.

I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was contained in the Homeland Security Act. Its inclusion in the new law was an important first step in reforming the way unaccompanied alien children are treated. It was a key provision for two reasons: First, it will help ensure that the Secretary of Homeland Security is not burdened with policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The new Department has a huge and important mission and its attention should be focused on that mission. Second, it recognizes that the Federal Government has a special responsibility to protect these children who are in federal custody. The INS did not always live up that responsibility.

But, the transfer of authority to the ORR--by itself--is not enough to ensure that these children are properly treated. Congress now has a responsibilty to go beyond the simple transfer and set the priorities for ORR and its new jurisdiction over unaccompanied foreign-born minors.

A number of other important reforms that were contained in last year's S. 121 were left out of the Homeland Security Act. Enactment of these reforms will be crucial if we truly are to reform the manner in which these children are treated. As I mentioned, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 builds on the Homeland Security Act in two ways: First, it would make a number of technical and conforming changes in law to bring about the smooth transfer of the INS's unaccompanied alien child-related functions to ORR. Second, it would make a number of more substantive reforms in law with respect the respect to the treatment of these children--reforms that are designed to ensure that such children are treated with fairness and compassion.

Other provisions include those that would keep children who are criminals or who pose a threat to national security under the custody of the Department of Homeland Security rather than transfer responsibility of them to the ORR.

I first became involved in this issue when I heard about a young 15- year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. immigration court facing deportation proceedings. She had found her way to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country.

She had been placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, fleeing China's rigid family planning laws, Under these laws, she was denied citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate.

And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? The INS detained her in a juvenile jail in Portland, OR, for 8 months before her asylum hearing, and 4 months after she was granted asylum.

At her asylum hearing, the young girl stood before a judge, unrepresented by counsel, confused, and unable to understand the proceedings against her. She could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to a lawyer who later came to represent her, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.''

While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl represents only one of 5,000 foreign-born children who, without parents or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States each year in need of protection. This, is unacceptable treatment. We have a responsibility to do better than this.

Central throughout the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 are two concepts: 1. The United States Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and 2. in all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a high priority protecting the interests of these children, most of whom are unable to understand the nature of the proceedings in which they are involved.

This bill would ensure that children who are apprehended by immigration authorities are treated humanely and appropriately by: ensuring that eligible unaccompanied alien children are promptly placed in the custody of Office of Refugee Resettlement after they are encountered by immigration officials; ensuring that the children have counsel to represent them in immigration proceedings and matters; authorizing the Director of ORR to provide guardians ad litem for the children to look after their interests; establishing clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody arrangements; establishing minimum standards for detention and alternative settings that take into account the special needs of children; improving such children's access to existing options for permanent protection when U.S. immigration and child welfare authorities believe such protection is warranted; setting forth procedures that immigration officers should follow when apprehending unaccompanied alien children at the United states border or at United States ports of entry; establishing procedures to ensure that the true age of an alien who claims to be under the age of 18 is determined; ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the Office of Refugee Resettlement, maintain custody over children who are either criminals or threats to national security; and establishing procedures to ensure that certain unaccompanied alien children from Mexico or Canada, encountered along the United States border, are returned to their homes, subject to formal agreements between the United States and those countries providing for their safe return without undue delay.

Without enactment of my legislation, none of these important parameters would be placed on the Office of Refugee Resettlement or the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill also includes provisions that provide for the safety of the significant number of unaccompanied alien children who are victims of smuggling or trafficking rings. For example, 2 years ago, Phanupong Khaisri, a 2-year old Thai child, was brought to the United States by two individuals falsely claiming to be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking ring.

The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain in the United States until the agency could provide proper medical attention and determine what course of action would be in his best interest.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent situations like this from recurring. Moreover, the legislation would ensure that children are released into safe and humane environments while awaiting a determination of their status when that is appropriate, and it would ensure that the children are protected from smugglers, traffickers, or others who might exploit them.

Further, it would require the ORR to take steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are protected from smugglers or others who may wish to do them harm, and authorizes reimbursement for State and local expenses associated with caring for unaccompanied alien children.

Children, even more than adults, have incredible difficulty understanding the complexities of the immigration system without the assistance of counsel. Despite this reality, most children in immigration custody are overlooked and unrepresented. Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to their home

countries where they may face further human rights abuses.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 20032 would require that all unaccompanied alien children in Federal custody by reason of their immigration status have counsel to represent them in any immigration proceedings involving them. It would vest in the Director of ORR responsibility for ensuring that the children have counsel, and it would provide the Director power to establish an infrastructure for developing a system to recruit and support pro bono counsel who can represent these children without cost to them or to the government.

It provides, as a last resort, that counsel could be provided for the children at government expense, capping the fees that such counsel could charge in the event that the government pays for such counsel.

This bill would authorize, but not mandate, the Director of ORR to put into place a system of guardians ad litem who would help the court in determining the best interests of children in U.S. custody.

The vast majority of unaccompanied alien children have been forced to maneuver the immigration system without any representation or without any assistance. This is unacceptable. It results in many children participating in a system without any understanding of the process they are undergoing or the ramifications of their situation.

Under this section, the guardian ad litem would not be working ``for the child.'' Nor would he or she be working for the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, he or she would be an impartial observer reporting to the court and to the Office of Refugee Resettlement on what he or she thinks is in the best interest of the child.

The guardians ad litem system could be modeled after any of a number of systems already existing in juvenile courts throughout the American juvenile justice system. This system is not a novel legal concept, but one that is trusted and already in place in every state in proceedings involving juveniles.

Imagine the fear of a foreign-born child, in the United States alone without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system she did not understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles with serious criminal convictions. Mr. President, I find it hard to believe that our country would have allowed innocent children to be treated in such a manner.

That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this legislation today. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children.

I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the American Bar Association, the United National High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals who live in the Fresno area of California.

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in he United States for nearly 20 years. They are the parents of Nayely and Cindy, who also stand to benefit from this legislation. The Arreolas also have three United States citizens children: Roberto, who is 11 year old; Daniel, who is 8; and Saray, their youngest daughter, who is six-years old. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola, and her children face deportation.

The story of the Arreola family is quite compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for humanitarian relief. The Arreolas are in uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the legal detriment he caused his immigrant clients.

Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program had he known that he could apply for it. Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth to Cindy to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It is quite likely that the family would have qualified for cancellation of removal but for the conduct of their previous attorney.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children: three of whom are U.S. citizens; the other two have lived in the United States virtually all of their lives. This country is the only the country they really know.

Nayely, the oldest child, is a junior in high school. She is an outstanding student with a 3.91 Grade Point Average who ranks fourth in her class of approximately 300 students. At her relatively young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community.

Nayely is a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely is also President of the key Club, a community service organization. She helps mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family if she is forced to return to Mexico will be her lost opportunity to realize here dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.

As the principal of her high school wrote, ``[s]he epitomizes what we seek to instill in all of our students. She has accepted the challenges and has made a commitment to better her future, to better her life, and to better herself through education.''

It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her fine family.

I understand that the Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents here in the United States. Mrs. Arreola also has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is my understanding that they do not have any family to whom they might return in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farmworker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community and to the United States as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of Xavier De La Torre, Principal of Granite Hills High School, as well as the numerous letters of support our office has received from members of the Porterville community be entered into the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Nayely's essay entitled ``If I Could Change the World,'' which she wrote at age 15, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer and myself, I rise today to introduce the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act. This bill, an $880 million authorization, is a 33 percent match for state and local dollars over the next 4 years to address California's water needs through a balanced program.

Last year's bill passed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 18-5, and since that time I have worked with Republicans, most notably Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, to come up with an even stronger bill.

The result: the legislation we introduced today is greatly improved from last year's bill--it is smaller, the authorizations are more specific, and it does a better job of ensuring that the CALFED program be implemented in a balanced manner. Let me describe how the bill is improved:

First, many Senators from other States were afraid CALFED was going to use up the Bureau of Reclamation's entire budget. To meet these concerns, we have cut the authorization level, ultimately to $880 million over four years. We also limited the Federal cost-share to one- third.

Second, some Republican Senators were afraid that environmental projects not needing authorization would sail smoothly ahead, while storage projects lacking Congressional approval would languish. To meet this concern, we required balanced implementation. The Secretary of the Interior must certify annually that the CALFED program is progressing in a balanced manner toward achieving all of its different components.

Third, other Republican Senators were concerned that they had no good handle on the Federal funding of the many different agencies involved in CALFED. We meet this concern by requiring the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to prepare a cross-cut budget showing the Federal funding of each of the different agencies. We also prepared a specific list of the projects to be funded and how much each one would receive.

In my view, these changes make the bill stronger and more likely to pass both the Senate and the House. Just as importantly, the bill continues to provide the funding necessary to implement the key elements of the CALFED program. In fact, the pieces of the legislation work together to solve our water needs:

One need is water storage. I don't believe we can meet all of our future water needs without increased water storage that is environmentally benign, that if off stream and that provides flexibility in the system for us to increase water supply, improve water quality, and enhance ecosystem restoration.

We must be able to take water in wet years and store it for use in dry years. The bill provides $102 million for planning and feasibility studies for water storage projects--and an additional $77 million for conveyance.

Next is ecological restoration. This means improving fish passages, restoring streams, rivers and habitats and improving water quality. The bill provides $100 million for ecological restoration.

The bill authorizes $153 million for water conservation and recycling, including $84 million for desalination and water recycling projects, leveraging substantial additional water supplies for California with relatively little Federal investment.

The bill would also improve water quality for drinking through investment in treatment technology demonstration projects and water quality improvements in the San Francisco Bay Delta, the San Joaquin Valley, and other parts of the State.

I would also like to emphasize that the bill includes a grants program for local and regional communities throughout California, including the northern part of the State. The bill authorizes up to $95 million for local California communities to develop plans and projects to improve their water situation. This State-wide grants program is an example of how the bill will benefit all Californians. The bill also includes $50 million for watershed planning and assistance.

The bill also includes other important provisions on levee stability, with $70 million, ensuring CALFED has strong supporting science, with $50 million, and $25 million for program management, oversight, and coordination. There is also $75 million for the environmental water account, which purchases available water for environmental and other purposes.

The bill also includes balance and cross-cut budget reporting requirements.

Through the CALFED process, we have discovered that, as Californians, we have many common water interests. For example, if we both conserve water and build new environmentally responsible off-stream storage, then we have

found two ways to increase the supply of water for everyone's use. And if we make intelligent investments in ecological restoration, we can continue to use water for growing our economy while benefitting our environment at the same time.

CALFED emerged after years of negotiations between Californians of different backgrounds who care about water. This bill proposes specific projects for each of CALFED's basic parts--and it appropriately defines the Federal role so that other states know that California is taking full responsibility for its own situation.

It is my strong belief that the Western energy crisis is a forerunner to what California will soon experience with water. Just consider the following: California has a population of over 35 million people, which is expected to grow to 50 million in twenty years, yet our water system infrastructure was built when the State had only 16 million people.

California is the sixth largest economy in the world. It is the number one agricultural producing State in the Nation. It is the leading producer of agriculture products, such as dairy, wine, grapes, strawberries, almonds, lettuce and tomatoes--the list goes on and on.

California's trade, manufacturing, and service sectors are substantial contributors to the American economy. Clearly, these sectors would be put at risk if there is not an adequate supply of water.

California has more endangered species than any State except Hawaii, as well as the largest population.

To make matters worse, a recent study by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography predicts that global warming could reduce the West's water suppy by an much as 30 percent by 2050.

Clearly, California's water needs are tremendous; meanwhile, the last major infrastructure improvement in the state occurred in the 1970s. We need to prepare for the future and we need to do so in an environmentally sensitive way. If there is one lesson to learn from California's damaging energy crisis, it is that time to address a crisis is not while it is happening, but beforehand.

California is struggling to build more power plants, while also doing everything possible to reduce demand through increased efficiency and conservation. But because this started so late, we have encountered some serious problems in the past two years, which is why it is even more important that we fix our water problem before it, too, reaches a crisis stage.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Cancer Act of 2003. I am pleased to have the support of Senators Smith, Daschle, Jeffords, Kennedy, Collins, Landrieu, Hutchison, Johnson, Corzine, Lincoln, Clinton, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Murray, Dodd, Boxer, Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Schumer, Hollings, Reed, Kerry, Mikulski, and Leahy on this important piece of legislation.

Today, cancer is the Nation's second cause of death, trailing heart disease. Over the next 30 years, however, cancer will surpass heart disease and become the leading cause of death as the Baby Boomers age.

This bill represents a comprehensive national battle plan to re- energize the Nation's war on cancer, a war that began on January 22, 1971 when President Richard Nixon proposed to Congress that we launch a war on cancer.

That commitment marked a critical first step. But it is clear that we must take further steps to address the scourge of cancer in every respect.

I am the Vice-Chair of the National Dialogue on Cancer--and in discussions with cancer experts from this group, it became clear to me that the National Cancer Act of 1971 was out of date.

We are now in the genomic era, on the cusp of discoveries and cures that we could only have dreamed about in 1971. The science of cancer has advanced dramatically with the revolution in molecular and cellular biology creating unprecedented opportunities for understanding how genetics relate to cancer.

The explosion in knowledge about the human genome and molecular biology will enable scientists to better target cancer drugs.

I believe that if we work smart we could find a cure for cancer in my lifetime.

Given these advances, I strongly believe that it is time to update the National Cancer Act of 1971, to reflect these breakthroughs. At the same time, I wanted to get input from some of the nation's foremost cancer experts.

To that end, I asked John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society, and Dr. Vincent DeVita, Director of the Yale Cancer Center, to form a special committee of cancer experts to provide recommendations on a national battle plan to conquer cancer.

The committee produced an ambitious plan, and what I have tried to do is take the most important components, in light of the current budget

situation, and develop a piece of legislation that could pass the Senate.

On November 7, 2001, President George W. Bush commended the work of the Committee when he wrote, ``The journey ahead will not be easy. But 30 years ago, no one would have imagined coming as far as we have. Working together, we will take the next steps necessary to defeat this deadly disease.''

Today, I invite the President to join me again in taking these steps by supporting this legislation.

Finding a cure for cancer is a very personal goal. I lost both my father and my husband to cancer. I saw its ravages firsthand, and I experienced the frustrations, the difficulties, and the loneliness that people suffer when a loved-one has cancer. I determined that I would do all I could to reduce the number of people who go through this devastating experience.

And it is my great hope that this legislation will help do just that, and enable us to find a cure for cancer in my lifetime.

This may in fact be the most important thing I do during my time in the Senate.

And I believe that this legislation addresses the issue in the right way, and I hope that my colleagues will agree.

The National Cancer Act of 2003 takes a multi-pronged approach to winning the war against cancer. Here's what the bill will do: 1. Accelerate Scientific Discovery. The advances in science that I spoke of earlier, regarding the human genome and molecular biology, have produced medications that can target the unhealthy cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact.

That is why this legislation establishes a grant program of $20 million a year, specifically for research that focuses on the development of a molecularly-oriented knowledge-based approach to cancer drug discovery and development.

It also includes a sense of the Senate to encourage the Federal Government to continue its investment in cancer research by staying on track to funding the NCI bypass budget.

NCI now funds approximately 4,500 research project grants at nearly 600 institutions every year. This represents 28 percent of the 16,000 grant proposals NCI receives. NCI scientists think funding 40 percent will allow them to fund the most promising grants. Yet at 28 percent, it does not happen.

Funding basic research marks a full frontal assault on cancer--an assault that will lead to more breakthroughs, more treatments, and ultimately, I believe, to a cure.

We now have drugs, like Gleevec for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia and Herceptin for breast cancer, that can target and destroy cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed.

Patients, who were considered terminal, have taken Gleevec and were able to get out of their beds and leave the hospice within days of treatment. After one-year of clinical trials for Gleevec, 51 out of 54 patients were still doing well. With 4,500 Americans diagnosed with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia a year, the potential for this drug is tremendous.

From the Bench to the Bedside: Expanding Access to Clinical Trials. First, the bill will provide $100 million per year for new grants for what is called ``translational'' research, work that moves promising drugs from the ``bench to the bedside.''

The purpose of this provision is to greatly accelerate the movement of basic research to the patient, from the ``bench to the bedside,'' so that we can conduct more clinical trials.

Clinical trials test the safety and efficacy of drugs, devices or new medical techniques. They are required for FDA approval. These trials require thousands of participating people to help determine if drugs are safe and effective.

The bill includes several steps to expand clinical trials, those research projects that require thousands of people to determine whether new drugs are safe and effective.

Right now, there are many new drugs under development that are stuck, as if in a funnel, because we have not put the resources into having the people-based research to test those drugs. There are approximately 400 new drugs that are held up in the development process because the resources are not available to fund clinical research to test those drugs.

For every one drug approved, 5,000 to 10,000 were initially considered. The entire process can take as long as 15 years.

Second, the bill will require insurers to pay the routine or non- research costs for people to participate in clinical trials, while the drug sponsor would continue to pay the research costs. California already requires this coverage by private insurers.

Third, the bill requires the National Cancer Institute to establish a program to recruit patients and doctors to participate in clinical trials. Dr. Robert Comis, President of the Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups, has said that eight out of ten cancer patients do not consider participating in a clinical trial. They are unaware that they might have the option. He has found that physician involvement is key.

This is why we must work to make both physicians and patients more aware of the importance of participating.

Currently, only 4 to 5 percent of adult cancer patients participate in clinical cancer trials. But Research America polls found that 61 percent of Americans would participate in a clinical trial if they could.

We should heed the example of what is called the ``pediatric model.'' Over 60 percent of children with cancer participate in clinical trials. Children in these trials get optimal care, with an overall physician manager or ``quarterback.'' The five-year survival rates for children with cancer have increased significantly.

In the 1960s, childhood leukemia could not be cured. It was a death sentence. Today, 70 percent of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia enter remission. This is but one example of the power and importance of clinical trials. An investigational treatment yesterday is standard treatment today.

Only by injecting new funding into cancer research will we enable cancer researchers to conduct the trials that are necessary to bring promising new drugs to market.

3. Transforming Research Into Treatments. Scientists say we will stop defining cancer by body part, like breast cancer or prostate cancer. Because everyday we are understanding better the genetic basis of cancer and can focus drugs on molecular targets. For example, we may have 50 different kinds of breast cancer, defined by their genetic basis.

As NCI's Dr. Rabson has said, ``As we've come to understand the molecular signatures of cancer cells, we can classify tumors according to their genetic characteristics.''

This means that we need to create incentives to encourage companies to make these targeted drugs, because as we redefine cancer, we will have smaller numbers of people who have that particular kind of breast cancer. Companies are often reluctant to make drugs for small patient populations.

This legislation would expand the current definition of ``orphan drugs'' from ``disease and condition'' to include ``disease or condition or targets and mechanisms of pathogenesis of diseases'' that effect a small patient population, less than 200,000. Current tax and marketing incentives remain the same. With an expansion of the definition, however, more drugs could potentially qualify for this designation.

Beginning with Gleevec and continuing into the future, drugs will target a narrow genetic or cellular mutation.

While this holds great promise for patients, it also means that the number of treatments will proliferate, thereby segmenting cancer patients into smaller and smaller populations. In some cases, this will mean that pharmaceutical companies for strictly financial reasons may not want to produce a given drug.

The impact: This will help to ensure that patients receive the highest quality care, even when the number of people faced with a particular type of cancer is small.

4. Having Enough Scientists. The bill will also create a new initiative to train more cancer researchers. Specifically, it will: 1. Pay off the medical school loans of 100 physicians who commit to spend at least 3 years doing cancer research; and 2. Boost the salaries of postdoctoral fellows from $28,000 to $45,000 per year over 5 years.

Every year, young physicians and researchers avoid the field of cancer research because, frankly, they feel they can make more money elsewhere. This provision will help reverse that trend and add thousands of men and women to the front lines of the fight.

The physician-scientist is endangered and essential, concluded a January 1999 study, showing that the number of first-time M.D. applicants for NIH research projects has been declining. The study, published in Science, said, ``. . . fewer young M.D.'s are interested in (or perhaps prepared for) careers as independent NIH-supported investigators.''

Simply put, young doctors and Ph.Ds do not want to go into cancer research because they can make more money elsewhere. Graduating physicians have medical school debt averaging $75,000 to $80,000. Because of the low pay to be a physician-scientist, these doctors cannot afford to go into research.

Postdoctoral fellows, who conduct the bulk of day-to-day research, receive pay that is neither commensurate with their education and skills nor adequate. To attract the best and the brightest to the field of cancer research, we need to pay them more than $28,000 to start.

The National Academy of Sciences in September 2000 called for increasing their compensation.

5. Quality Cancer Care. All too often having cancer is a lonely and frightening experience. Cancer patients have a team of doctors, from the primary care physician to the radiologist to the oncologist. Yet patients need one doctor to be in charge.

During a June 16, 1999 hearing, The Institute of Medicine told the Senate Cancer Coalition that the care that cancer patients get is all too often just a matter of circumstance: ``. . . for many Americans with cancer, there is a wide gulf between what could be construed as the ideal and the reality of [Americans'] experience with cancer care . . . The ad hoc and fragmented cancer care system does not ensure access to care, lacks coordination, and is inefficient in its use of resources.''

The Institute of Medicine study on the uneven quality of health care says, ``Health care today is characterized by more to know, more to manage, more to watch, more to do, and more people involved in doing it than at any time in the nation's history.''

The bill will require insurance plans to pay doctors, preferably oncologists, to become the overall managers of patients' care, what I call a ``quarterback physician,'' to be with the patient from diagnosis through treatment, to prevent the patient from being forced to navigate the medical system alone.

I developed this concept after meeting Dr. Judy Schmidt, a solo- practicing oncologist from Montana. Dr. Schmidt cares for her patients from diagnosis to treatment, and she is really a model for doctors across the Nation to emulate.

This ``quarterback physician'' would provide overall management of the patient's care among all the providers. Someone would be in charge. This provision could save money because good coordination can reduce hospitalization costs.

The bill authorizes grants to health centers for the development and operation of programs that assign patient navigators, nurses, social workers, cancer survivors and patient advocates, to individuals of health disparity populations, to assist in following-up on a cancer diagnosis and to help them find the appropriate services and follow-up care, which includes facilitating access to health care services.

This program is important because many people receive unequal access to care. The Institute of Medicine issued a report last year called Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. This report emphasized the importance of ``providing advocates for patients who can assist them in asking the appropriate questions, and making the necessary inquiries as they access the health are system . . . ''

Often these are patients without health insurance who are not fluent in English. Having a culturally appropriate ``navigator'' who will assist them in making appointments and understanding the services available to them could help improve quality of life for minorities.

Lastly, the bill also authorizes grants through the Centers for Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute to monitor and evaluate quality cancer care, develop information concerning quality cancer care and monitor cancer survivorship.

6. Coverage of Preventive Measures. People cannot get good health care if they have no way to pay for it, if insurance plans, public and private, do not cover the basics like screenings for cancer.

My bill will require public plans, like Medicare and Medicaid, and private insurance plans to cover four services important to good cancer care: 1. Cancer screenings; 2. Genetic testing and counseling for people at risk; 3. Smoking cessation counseling; and 4. Nutrition counseling.

Access to mammograms, pelvic exams, along with reducing fat in the diet and stopping smoking--all of which could be enhanced by this bill--can stop cancer before it is too late.

Because too many Americans have no way to pay for their health care when cancer strikes and because seven percent of cancer patients are uninsured, the bill also requires the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the feasibility and cost of providing Medicare coverage to individuals at any age who are diagnosed with cancer and have no other way to pay for their health care.

Medicare already covers care for people of any age who have End Stage Renal Disease and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease. This study could provide helpful guidance to the Congress.

Because no assault on cancer is complete without a strong cancer prevention component, the bill provides funds and requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prepare a model state cancer control and prevention program; expand the National Program of Comprehensive Cancer Control plans, and to assist every state to develop a cancer prevention and control program.

The bill also authorizes $250 million to expand the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's breast and cervical cancer screening program and authorizes $50 million for CDC to begin screening programs for colorectal cancer.

7. Bolstering the Number of Health Care Providers. Because of the aging of the American population, we face a virtual explosion of cancer in the coming 30 years. The number of cases will double. But the sad fact is that we do not have enough nurses and other health care professionals to take care of this expected rise in cancer patients.

My bill will provide $100 million for loans, grants and fellowships to train for the full range of cancer care providers, including nurses for all settings, allied health professionals, and physicians. The bill requires that these applicants have the intention to get a certificate, degree, or license and demonstrate a commitment to working in cancer care.

In nursing alone--those critical people on the front line of care-- many experts say we face a national nursing shortage in virtually every setting, which will peak in the next 10 to 15 years unless steps are taken. By 2020, the RN workforce will be 20 percent short of what will be needed. My home State of California ranks 50th among registered nurses per capita.

And it's not just nurses. The Health Resources Services Administration says that the demand of health care professionals will grow at twice the rate of other occupations.

Cancer is primarily a disease of aging. As the baby boomers age, there will be more cancer. Cancer care is becoming more and more complex as technology improves. Skilled providers, from the nurse assistant to the oncologist are needed to administer the complex therapies. This bill should provide some help.

8. Cancer Survivorship. Thanks to advances in cancer detection and early diagnosis, more aggressive and effective treatments, and better screening tools, about 9 million Americans--nearly one in 30--can call themselves a cancer survivor. This represents 3 percent of the population.

Thirty years ago a cancer diagnosis was a death sentence. That is not the case today. As a result, addressing a person's quality of life post-cancer is becoming increasingly important.

To give you a snapshot picture of what a typical cancer survivor looks

like: about 59 percent of cancer survivors are over the age of 65; 3 million (30 percent) were diagnosed between 5-15 years ago; and, 23 percent are breast cancer survivors and 17 percent are prostate cancer survivors.

Current statistics suggest that for individuals who receive a diagnosis today, 60 percent can expect to be alive in 5 years. The 5- year survival rate for children is even higher--almost 75 percent.

What this means is that more than half of all people, children or adults, diagnosed with cancer today, will become cancer survivors.

We've come a long way. And the survival rate for cancer will only get better as we continue to make improvements in screenings, detection, diagnosis and treatment.

But now we face new challenges. We need to better understand what services are necessary to help address the needs of people who are surviving cancer.

This bill would do several things to help support cancer survivors.

First, it would codify an Office of Cancer Survivorship at NCI. Since 1999, such an Office has been in existence but it has not been officially recognized by Congress or received it's own budget.

This Office is crucial because it sets the research agenda at NCI on survivorship-related issues.

The National Cancer Institute found in 1999 that ``surviving cancer can leave a host of problems in its wake. Physical, emotional, and financial hardships often persist for years after initial diagnosis and treatment. Many survivors suffer decreased quality of life following treatment, leading one cancer activist and survivor to say, `surviving is not just about a cure, but about living the rest of our lives.' ''

For some, long-term health problems result, for example, because a surgery to remove a cancer tumor has impaired nearby organs which could cause additional health problems.

Additionally, patients who survive one cancer have almost twice the risk of developing a second cancer as the general population. Almost 100,000 people are diagnosed each year with ``second cancers.'' What can be done to reduce the chance of a second diagnosis of cancer?

And the bill also authorizes grants through the Centers for Disease Control for activities including the development of a cancer surveillance system to track the health status of cancer survivors, and the development of a national cancer survivorship action plan.

For 9 years I have co-chaired the Senate Cancer Coalition. We have held ten hearings on cancer. With each hearing, I become more and more convinced that we can conquer cancer in my lifetime. These are the highlights of the cancer battle plan.

It is my hope that this legislation will become the rallying cry for the Cancer community.

Polls by Research America show that the public wants their tax dollars spent on medical research and that in fact people will pay more in taxes for more medical research.

Cancer impacts everyone. Everyone knows someone who has had cancer or will have cancer.

I am thoroughly convinced that if we just marshal the resources, we can conquer cancer in the 21st century. Let's begin. The road ahead is long and treacherous. But if we all work together, I honestly believe we can do it.