Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kennedy and myself, and we are joined by Senators Feingold, Dayton, and Stabenow.

Mr. President, I think the Senator probably knows this would strike the Spratt-Furse language.

I was 12 years old when the Enola Gay went out of the Pacific. I remember that big mushroom cloud on the San Francisco Chronicle and then, for months afterward, I remember the pictures that came back from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It may well be that we are too far removed from that day to really understand the repercussions of what this bill is going to begin to allow to happen in the United States. What is going to be allowed to happen is a reopening of the door to nuclear development which has been closed for decades.

This amendment would strike section 3131, and that is the repeal of the Spratt-Furse language which prohibits the development of so-called low-yield nuclear weapons. This prohibition of nuclear development was adopted in the 1994 Defense authorization bill. It has been the law of the land for the last decade.

The language of Spratt-Furse--I would like to read it--says that with respect to U.S. policy, ``it shall be the policy of the United States not to conduct research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a new low-yield nuclear weapon, including a precision low-yield warhead. The Secretary of Energy may not conduct or provide for the conduct of research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a low-yield nuclear weapon which, as of the date of the enactment of this act, has not entered production.''

And then it has a section on the effect on other research and development, and it says that nothing in this section shall prohibit the Secretary of Energy from conducting or providing for the conduct of research and development necessary to design a testing device that has a yield of less than 5 kilotons; secondly, to modify an existing weapon for the purpose of addressing safety and reliability concerns, or, three, to address proliferation concerns.

President Bush is right when he says the greatest threat facing the United States lies in the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist access to these weapons. But by adopting a new approach to national security in the wake of 9/11 that stresses unilateralism and preemption and increases U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons, I am deeply concerned that this administration may actually be encouraging the very proliferation we seek to prevent.

This bill, left intact, clearly opens the door to the development of new nuclear weapons and will, if left as is, begin a new era of nuclear proliferation, as sure as I am standing here.

A couple of weeks ago, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright talked with the Democratic Senate Caucus and she said something interesting. She said, in all of American history, there never has been a greater change in foreign policy and national security than between this administration and the last one.

Indeed, I deeply believe this bill places America at a crossroad in the conduct of foreign policy, and how we determine nuclear weapons policy will go a long way to determining whether we control nuclear proliferation or expand it. This bill will expand it. Let there be no doubt.

To my mind, even considering the use of these weapons threatens to undermine our efforts to stop proliferation. In fact, it actually encourages other nations to pursue nuclear weapons by emphasizing their importance.

For decades the United States relied on its nuclear arsenal for deterrence

only. In the symmetric world of the Cold War, we faced the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons and a conventional military that was stronger than ours. Nuclear weapons were used to deter not only a nuclear attack on our homeland but also a conventional attack against our allies in western Europe and Asia.

Today the Soviet Union is gone, but the world is not a safer place. Rather, we have seen new nuclear states emerge--India, Pakistan, and lately North Korea. As we continue to prosecute the war on terror, it should be a central tenet of U.S. policy to do everything at our disposal to make nuclear weapons less desirable, less available, and less likely to be used.

This bill will do exactly the opposite. Instead of ratcheting back our reliance on nuclear weapons, this administration is looking for new ways to use nuclear weapons and to make them more usable. Does anyone in this Chamber doubt that others will follow? I do not. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released in January of 2002, did not focus solely on the role of nuclear weapons for deterrence. It stressed the importance of being prepared to use nuclear weapons in the future. In fact, the review noted that we must now plan to possibly use them against a wider range of countries.

The Nuclear Posture Review said that we need to develop new types of nuclear weapons so we can use them in a wider variety of circumstances and against a wider range of targets such as hard and deeply buried targets or to defeat chemical or biological agents. And indeed, a few months after issuing the Nuclear Posture Review, President Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive 17, saying the United States might use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack.

In the past, U.S. officials have only hinted at that possibility. But this administration has made it formal policy. In doing so, it has telegraphed the importance of nuclear weapons and the administration's apparent willingness to use them.

In the legislation before us today, there is language requested by the administration asking Congress to repeal the Spratt-Furse provision--a decade old law that bans research on weapons with yields of 5 kilotons. Now, that is a third the size of the bomb used at Hiroshima.

I believe Spratt-Furse is an important prohibition with positive security equities for the United States. Since it has been in effect, no nation has developed lower yield nuclear weapons.

This administration wants to repeal Spratt-Furse for one reason, and one reason only: to build new nuclear weapons, particularly for missions against the hardened bunkers that rogue states may be using to store chemical and biological weapons.

By seeking to build nuclear weapons that produce smaller explosions and develop weapons which dig deeper, the administration is suggesting we can make nuclear weapons less deadly. It is suggesting we can make them more acceptable to use. But there is no such thing as a clean nuclear weapon that minimizes collateral damage.

Consider the following facts: According to a Stanford physicist, Sidney Drell, destroying a target buried 1,000 feet into rock would require a nuclear weapon with the yield of 100 kilotons. That is 10 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

According to Dr. Drell, even the effects of a small bomb would be dramatic. A 1-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 20 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air.

According to models done by the Natural Resources Defense Council, detonating a similar weapon on the surface of a city would kill a quarter of a million people and injure hundreds of thousands more.

So there really is no such thing as a ``usable nuclear weapon.''

Moreover, nuclear weapons cannot be engineered to penetrate deeply enough to prevent fallout. Based on technical analysis at the Nevada Test Site, a weapon with a 10-kiloton yield must be buried deeper than 850 feet to prevent spewing of radioactive debris. Yet a weapon dropped from a plane at 40,000 feet will penetrate less than 100 feet of loose dirt and less than 30 feet of rock.

Ultimately, the depth of penetration is limited by the strength of the missile casing. The deepest our current earth penetrators can burrow is 20 feet of dry earth. Casing made of even the strongest material cannot withstand the physical forces of burrowing through 100 feet of granite, much less 850 feet.

In addition, the United States already has a usable nuclear bunker buster, the B61-11, which has a ``dial-a-yield'' feature, allowing its yield to range from less than a kiloton to several hundred kilotons. When configured to have a 10-kiloton yield and detonated 4 feet underground, the B61-11 can produce a shock wave sufficient to crush a bunker buried beneath 350 feet of layered rock. We have the weapons to do the job. We don't need another.

But the U.S. military, the strongest and most capable military force the world has ever seen, bar none, has plenty of effective conventional options at hand designed to penetrate deeply into the earth and destroy underground bunkers and storage facilities.

Those conventional bunker busters range in size from 500 to 5,000 pounds, and most are equipped with either a laser or GPS guidance system. A 5,000-pound bunker buster like the Guided Bomb Unit 28/B is capable of penetrating up to 20 feet of reinforced concrete or 100 feet of earth. It was used with much success in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Other conventional bunker busters were used to take out Saddam Hussein's underground lairs in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, the U.S. military possesses a conventional bunker buster, the GBU-37, which is thought to be capable of taking out a silo-based ICBM. With this conventional arsenal at our disposal, there is little military utility that a low-yield nuclear weapon provides to the U.S. military.

While I agree that nuclear weapons may have some military utility in certain circumstances, the benefit of the development of new mini-nukes appears to me to be far outweighed by the costs. But with the sought- for repeal of Spratt-Furse, the administration seems to be moving toward a military posture in which nuclear weapons are considered just like other weapons--in which their purpose is not simply to serve as a deterrent but as a usable instrument of military power, like a tank, a fighter aircraft, or a cruise missile.

But there are several things wrong with that logic. Nuclear weapons are different.

First, using them--even small ones--would cross a line that has been in place for 60 years. If the Spratt-Furse prohibition is repealed, the development of new nuclear weapons could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear testing in order to test the new weapons. This would overturn the 10-year moratorium on nuclear testing and could lead other nuclear powers, and nuclear aspirants, to resume or start testing, actions that would fundamentally alter future nonproliferation and counterproliferation efforts.

I understand Secretary of State Powell has written a letter supporting this, and I must express my profound disappointment. I must restate something he said last year on ``The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.'' I quote Secretary Powell:

I mean, the thought of nuclear conflict in 2002, with what

that would mean with respect to loss of life, what that would

mean to the condemnation--the worldwide condemnation--that

would come down on whatever nation chose to take that course

of action, would be such that I can see very little military,

political, or other kind of justification for the use of

nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in this day and age may

serve some deterrent effect, and so be it; but to think of

using them as just another weapon in what might start out as

a conventional conflict in this day and age seems to me

something that no side should be contemplating.

This was 1 year ago. What has changed, Mr. President? Why would we open the door to nuclear development at the very time we are trying to say to North Korea this is unacceptable, at the very time we are worried as to whether Pakistan can securitize its nuclear weapons, and whether there may be a nuclear holocaust between Pakistan and India?

I have never been more concerned about where this Nation is going than I am today. Let me give another example. China has a no-first-use nuclear policy. Their warheads have been stable at between 18 and 24 ICBMs. Yet we

have a policy document, the Nuclear Posture Review, that says we would countenance a first use of nuclear weapons against China if they were to use military action against Taiwan, and we said the same thing about North Korea going into South Korea. This is in writing.

Does no one think anybody reads these things? Does no one believe that we do not set the tenor of the world with respect to weapons? We are the largest weapons seller on Earth, and I do not want to see us develop more nuclear weapons, nor do I believe the American people want to see it either. This bill allows that to happen.

I do not believe this side of the aisle can sit by and let it happen to our children and our grandchildren. Tactical nuclear weapons in the most sophisticated military in the world should play no part.

I cannot think of a single issue that should more define the political agenda today than whether the United States should go back into the nuclear business again, and repeal of Spratt-Furse is the first step in that direction.

In the Energy Committee, I suspected this was coming, and I asked Secretary Abraham: Are there any plans? He said no. Last Wednesday, in Defense Appropriations, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld what is going on. He said: Oh, it is just a study. Just a study, baloney. Does anyone really believe that?

The repeal of Spratt-Furse opens the door for America to begin to develop nuclear weapons again, and I for one do not believe we should sit by and see that happen.

We are telling others not to develop nuclear weapons. We are telling others not to sell fissile materials. We are concerned when North Korea has plutonium and uranium and Iran begins to start up refining uranium. Yet it is all right for us to go out and begin to develop weapons that are one-third the size of the weapon that hit Hiroshima and killed instantly 175,000 people? I do not think so. And I do not believe that is what the American people stand for either.

This is a big vote. This is a vote that opens the door. How we can repeal language that says to all the world the United States is not in the nuclear development business, I do not know, but I find it absolutely chilling and even diabolical, particularly when we preach to other nations.

At a time when we brand as evil certain countries based in part on their pursuit of nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction, we must be careful how we consider our own options and our own contingencies regarding nuclear weapons. So I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about the implications this defense bill is going to carry throughout the world.

The 10-year old prohibition on study, on testing, and on developing nuclear weapons is going to be thrown out the window, and it is a major signal that the United States is going to get back into the nuclear arms business.

I urge this Senate to join Senator Kennedy and I in support of this amendment. I yield time to Senator Kennedy, as much time as he requires.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed from Rhode Island be added as a cosponsor, Senator Durbin of Illinois, I believe Senator Dayton already is, and Senator Bingaman, as well.

I wish the opportunity to speak at the end for 1 hour.

At the end. If it is a unanimous consent agreement, I don't want to be cut off.

Mr. President, I thank all of those who have come to the floor to speak. I think this is a very important debate because I think we are at a crossroad.

Clearly, this Defense authorization bill, when coupled with the repeal of the Spratt-Furse amendment, opens the door to new nuclear development. In my tenure in the Senate, in either a classified or unclassified session, I have never had any information provided that this is necessary or that there is a military requirement to do so.

One of the reasons this should not be repealed is, when it is combined with other provisions in the Defense authorization bill, one can really see where this is going. For example, this bill authorizes $15 million for the study of the robust nuclear earth penetrator. It authorizes $6 million for advanced nuclear weapons concepts. Then if we look at page 448 of the report, we see that the committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Energy to achieve and thereafter maintain a readiness posture of 18 months for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear tests. This moves up a 3-year period to 18 months.

So if we combine all of these, it is very clear to me that where this country is going is toward the resumption of nuclear development.

I wish to rebut a couple of arguments. It was said that we need capabilities for any possible contingency, and I could not agree more. But if we read Spratt-Furse, it allows research but it disallows development and production. In other words, it allows research on existing systems; it does not allow research on new systems. Consequently, if Spratt-Furse is repealed, what automatically is being said is that we begin study, research, and testing on new systems. If research is promising and there is a military need, the administration can come back and ask for specific authorization. As I said, there is no specific military requirement for these weapons that we know about.

It has also been said today that developing low-yield weapons is important to preserve U.S. credibility in determining threats. In fact, we already have over 6,000 nuclear weapons in our stockpile, and we already have a warhead that can be dialed down to 1 kiloton or less. So what is the need to go to 5 kilotons of new development? We do not know because it has never been presented to us.

We also have an overwhelming conventional military advantage over any other country. We have conventional bombs that range in size from 500 to 5,000 pounds. A 5,000-pound bunker buster, like the guided bomb unit 28B, is capable of penetrating up to 20 feet of reinforced concrete or 100 feet of earth. This was used with success in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

To my knowledge, we have never been told that this is inadequate or that there is no other way, other than a nuclear way, to get at a deep bunker; we have never been told that our intelligence does not work or you cannot plug an air hole or you cannot use a number of conventional bunker busters to achieve a similar result.

We have been told that repealing Spratt-Furse will not affect proliferation because others will seek nuclear weapons anyway. Well, our standing in the world, I have thought, really rests on our moral case, our sense of justice, our sense of equity, our freedom. In fact, since 1992, the United States has not developed new weapons and others have followed suit. Russia has not tested since then and has not developed new weapons. China stopped testing. India and Pakistan have not tested for 5 years and are not currently developing new weapons. But we can be sure, when it is learned that the United States is going to go ahead with new studies, new feasibility tests on up to 5-kiloton new nuclear warheads, that others will follow suit.

I believe U.S. restraint is, in fact, an important element of our nonproliferation effort.

This is a very big vote that is before us right now because the only reason to repeal Spratt-Furse is to signal that we are, in fact, going to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. This is a horrible mistake. I think it is a mistake morally. I think it is a mistake militarily. I do not know a commander who would want to send his troops onto a battlefield where a 5-kiloton nuclear weapons device had been utilized. So why are we doing this? It makes no sense to me. I hope this body would vote against it.

I leave with one point. A 1-kiloton weapon detonated at a depth of 20 to 50 feet would inject more than 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris and form a crater about the size of ground zero in New York. If we fail to repeal the repeal, we will allow research to go ahead to develop up to five times that when we have conventional weapons that can do the job as well. I have very strong feelings on this subject.

I thank Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin, and all Members who have come to the floor to speak in support of our amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to remember and pay tribute to Mike Jendrzejczyk, a tireless and dedicated champion of human rights who passed away earlier this month. A gaping hole has been left with his passing, but his life and commitment to fundamental values we all cherish will continue to inspire and motivate us all.

As the Washington director for the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch for 13 years, Mike became an institution in this city and a leader in his field. Few human rights issues in Asia escaped his attention and few of his colleagues could surpass his knowledge and level of expertise.

As Human Rights Watch noted, ``There's no one in D.C. who didn't know him, and no one in military fatigues in Asia who didn't have a reason to fear him.''

From Burma and Indonesia, to Vietnam and North Korea, Mike spoke up for those who could not speak for themselves. He shined a light on human rights abuses and made it his mission to see that justice was done. Time and time again he called on the United States to live up to the values that made this country great and be the leader for human rights that the world so desperately needed.

Recently, my office had worked with Mike on the need to bring safety and stability to the people of Afghanistan, particularly women and girls. We have lost a partner in that endeavor, but we have not lost the example he set, and I know his memory will push us to work even harder in the days and weeks ahead.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Janet and his colleagues and friends at Human Rights Watch. Mike Jendrzejczyk will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Greg Brown, be granted the privilege of the floor for the debate on the Defense bill.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, this is a very important issue to virtually every urban community. For California, the cuts to Medicaid DSH payments means a loss of over $184 million a year. At Fresno Valley Hospital alone this cut is worth $6 million a year. We have had a number of our hospitals close, due in part to cuts to disproportionate share payments.

I want to particularly thank the Senator from Massachusetts, and the manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member for their commitment to take this matter up on the Medicare bill. I look forward to working with them to fix this important program.

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 rise today with Senators Leahy, Clinton, Durbin, Jeffords, Harkin, Lautenberg, Reid, Schumer, Corzine, Boxer, Feingold, and Biden to offer an amendment to strike the earmark included in the bill which mandates that 33 percent of all prevention funds must be used exclusively for abstinence before marriage programs.

I deeply believe this bill has one major flaw. I appreciate the bill, and I know the effort that went into it. It is a big step forward. But when it comes to AIDS, prevention is the name of the game.

Over one-half of the AIDS cases that are expected between today and 2010 can be prevented. The World Health Organization says of the 45 million new HIV cases anticipated, 29 million could be averted with effective prevention.

I was mayor of San Francisco when AIDS was discovered. We had one of the first AIDS program in the country. I spent 9 years of my life as Mayor developing AIDS prevention programs, seeing what worked and what did not work. What I found was that there has to be flexibility. What works for one group of people or community might not necessarily work for another.

I believe one of the major flaws of this bill is the earmark which would require that 33 percent of the prevention funds--that is $1 billion over 5 years or $200 million a year--must be spent exclusively on abstinence before marriage programs. Abstinence will not work for everyone.

We offer this amendment not because we are opposed to abstinence programs or do not want to see them funded. Rather, there are many additional approaches that are also effective and we believe it is critical that there be the necessary flexibility for a particular community or country to design a prevention program that best meets the needs of its people.

I deeply believe that when we look at prevention, we have to consider a number of programs. Let me give a few examples of prevention programs that should be funded under this bill:

Voluntary counseling and testing. This is an important component to stop the spread of the virus. Access to testing is important to ensure that one knows they are infected. Often, the disease is spread from husband to wife because he does not even know he is HIV positive. So testing is prevention.

Another form of prevention is stopping the spread of HIV from mother- to-child. Nevirapine is effective in preventing the transmission of HIV from a mother to her child. Studies have shown that combining drug therapy with counseling and instruction on use of such drugs can reduce transmission by 50 percent.

Blood safety is also an important preventive measure. While the U.S. has taken the necessary steps to nearly eliminate the transmission of HIV by blood transfusion, many countries lack resources and infrastructure to take similar action including the creation of a national blood supply, use of low-risk blood donors, screening of blood donations, and reducing the number of unnecessary transfusions.

Sexually transmitted disease control is another prevention tool. Left unchecked, sexually transmitted diseases can expand the risk of HIV/ AIDS two to five times.

Lastly, empowering women is an important component to prevention. In Africa, women account for 58 percent of HIV/AIDS cases, and the number is rising. This means that providing women around the world with health and educational opportunities, equal rights before the law, protection from sexual violence and sexual trafficking, can help them take control of their lives and help reduce the spread of HIV.

It is unrealistic to think that sexual abstinence is the most appropriate prevention strategy in every community. There has been research conducted in our own society on how an abstinence only approach fails to reach everyone. Therefore, I fail to understand then how this approach will work in the developing world.

I deeply believe that the 33 percent earmark is the wrong approach to take with this bill. The amendment we have submitted would replace that 33 percent earmark with language that would give local communities the flexibility necessary to design prevention programs that work for them. It includes abstinence. It includes faithfulness. It would also include the use of condoms for sexually active people.

I believe our amendment is simple and straight forward. Let local communities, working in conjunction with the USAID and others, develop prevention programs that work for them. Congress should be passing legislation that simply gives local communities and health care providers the necessary resources to implement programs that are effective given their unique cultural, social, and medical circumstances.

I yield the floor.

I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I yield 1 minute to Senator Durbin.

Mr. President, I yield the remaining balance of the time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to take a few minutes today to discuss the state of the American economy and discuss why I believe new tax cuts are the wrong economic medicine right now.

I was one of the 12 Democrats who voted for a major tax cut in March of 2001. And I want to just bring to everybody's attention what the situation was then.

In March 2001 we were in our third year of surplus in the budget. We were projected to run a $5.6 trillion surplus through 2010. So it seemed an appropriate time to return some of that surplus to taxpayers, just as a business would do when that business was doing well. That is when a business would consider dividends for its investors or bonuses for its employees. That was 7 months before 9/11. Today we face cumulative deficits of approximately $2 trillion over 10 years. And that is the conservative estimate. Goldman Sachs estimates it at double that. We also face huge long-term shortfalls in the Medicare and Social Security trust funds.

Since late last year, the administration has been pushing for a second large tax cut, some $726 billion in tax breaks that would actually provide little upfront stimulus. The centerpiece of the President's proposal is a plan to eliminate taxes on corporate dividends.

Half of the benefits of that plan would be realized by taxpayers earning over $200,000 a year, and the plan would do nothing for the millions of Americans who hold stocks only through retirement plans that are already tax advantaged. At the same time, my State, California, would lose over $20 billion over the next 10 years as a result of lower direct tax revenue and higher interest rates on municipal bonds.

State budgets cannot afford to lose these costs, and neither can the Federal budget. The budget report which recently passed Congress locks us into deficits for the next 10 years, totaling some $2 trillion over that period.

In his State of the Union Message, the President 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.

I cannot agree with that sentiment more, but that is not what has happened. Exactly the opposite has happened.

Whether the tax cut ends up at $150 billion or $350 billion or $550 billion, it will all be financed by deficit spending. Every dollar in new tax cuts that passes this Chamber is a dollar we cannot afford to spend. We will not pay for it now, but our children are going to pay for it later.

Our current deficit is projected to be $347 billion this year, although many estimate the number will more likely be closer to $400 billion by the end of the fiscal year. And it is estimated to be $385 billion next year. These estimates do not include additional costs of rebuilding Iraq or new legislation not included in the President's budget.

The deficits now projected are neither small nor are they short term. Rather, they are the largest in history. The only way that the budget resolution which came out of conference committee achieves balance is by expecting unrealistic cuts to discretionary spending after 2008.

To put some perspective on the size of the deficits expected this year, it is useful to compare it to nondefense discretionary spending. This year we are projected to spend $385 billion for everything outside of entitlement programs and defense. That includes funding for education, law enforcement, transportation, environmental protection, and hundreds of other uses.

If the Federal Government were required to balance its budget each year, as do 49 of our 50 States, it could cut nondefense discretionary spending by 90 percent--by 90 percent--and only just manage to reach balance. Imagine the impact that would have on Government services that we rely on every day.

Let me explain that further. If you look at a pie chart for the year 2003, 64 percent of all of the expenditures, the outlays this year, is for interest on the debt and entitlement programs. Entitlement programs are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, and welfare. If you are entitled to them, you get them. They cannot be cut in the budget process. So 64 percent of all of the expenditures cannot be controlled. Defense is 17 percent, and nondiscretionary--every other department--is 19 percent. That is why you could cut 90 percent of that 19 percent, and you can't really bring the budget into balance because of these other items in the expenditure area.

The only reason the Federal Government is not facing cuts in service is because it can take on new debt to cover the shortfall in tax revenue. When the occupant of the chair was mayor of a great city and I was mayor of a great city, we couldn't do this. We had to balance our budgets. The Federal Government can do this.

Should the President's proposed tax cuts be adopted in their entirety, our public debt would nearly double over the next 10 years, from $6.7 trillion today to $12 trillion in 2013.

Later this month, the Senate will take up a bill to increase the Federal debt ceiling by almost $1 trillion--$984 billion, to be precise. That is the largest increase in our Nation's history. That increase represents $3,400 in new debt for every American citizen, whether they pay taxes or not. That increase is shocking, but the unfortunate truth is that the $1 trillion in new debt Congress is set to authorize will cost Americans much more than $3,400 each because interest in our debt drives up interest rates, because there is a limited appetite for debt at home and abroad, and investors must be given incentives to take on new debt in the form of higher interest rates.

Those interest rates are not just paid by the Government; they are also paid by homeowners who take out a mortgage. Look at the low mortgage rates today and what they are worth to an individual. William Gale, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, predicts that interest rates could rise by as much as four-tenths of a percent due to the effects of the President's proposal.

What does that do to the average citizen? I will tell you. An increase of that magnitude would add $800 to the cost of a $200,000 home mortgage in the first year alone. It would increase costs by thousands of dollars more over the life of the mortgage.

I have always believed for many Americans low interest rates are much more worthwhile than a tax cut that they may only see slightly. But when they refinance their house, they see it big time, or when they are able to draw out from the accrued equity of the house. So interest rates not only affect homeowners, but they also affect businesses seeking to make new capital investments in the cost of money they borrow. The effect is to crowd out private investment and stifle economic growth.

Let's talk for a moment about the 2001 tax cut that I voted for, that 12 of us on my side of the aisle voted for, when times were good, before 9/11, with

a $5.6 trillion surplus and a surplus in our budget 3 years in a row.

At the same time that the administration pushes for new tax relief, it does little to acknowledge that tax relief already scheduled to occur is, in fact, taking place. I don't understand. If I were President of the United States, I would be out on the hustings saying: The Congress, in 2001, gave you tax relief, Mr. and Mrs. America, and this is what it looks like: In 2001, $41 billion was paid out to taxpayers. In 2002, $71 billion was paid out in tax cuts to taxpayers. In 2003, $90 billion is going to be paid out in tax cuts to taxpayers. That totals, Mr. and Mrs. America, $202 billion that you have already or are getting from the 2001 tax cut. And next year, 2004, you will get another $100 billion. That totals over $300 billion being paid out in tax cuts today from the 2001 tax cut.

Why, in our current fiscal circumstances, should we add on such a large amount of tax relief when that relief is now beginning to take effect from the 2001 tax cut? Next year, which is the earliest a new tax cut could reasonably take effect, we are already scheduled to see a 1-percent drop in marginal income tax rates, an increase in the individual estate tax exemption from $1 million to $1.5 million, and relief from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. So these things are happening as a product of our 2001 tax cut. Why doesn't the President speak about them? That would reassure the American public, I believe.

Today I have heard two primary arguments in favor of this tax cut. I have found neither argument to be logical or persuasive. The first argument is that the tax cut will be stimulative. In fact, we know it will have little or no stimulative impact as it is currently structured. Let me mention a few of the reasons why.

Less than 20 percent of the tax cut can take effect within a year. Less than 20 percent of it can take effect within the next year. Economists agree that in order for tax cuts to be stimulative, they must be front loaded, and they must be large enough to make a meaningful impact.

The President's package fulfills neither requirement because its benefits largely accrue in the outyears. They would amount to a stimulus of less than 1 percent of GDP over the next 12 months.

A dynamic analysis of the effect of the package on the economy predicts it will generate little or no economic growth. The newly appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holz-Eakin, recently conducted CBO's first foray into dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring is a method of economic analysis that looks at the ripple effects of tax and spending bills on economic growth beyond their direct cost or benefit.

The results of the CBO study were eye opening. The President's tax cut proposal was projected to have little or no impact on economic growth and could actually reduce growth in the later years. The administration's own economic team released data indicating that over the long term, the plan creates few new jobs.

The tax cuts included in the plan provide very little bang for the buck.

The second argument in favor of the President's tax cut is that without the threat of large budget deficits, Congress will never act to rein in spending. Therefore, large budget deficits are actually a tool of responsible government. To me, this argument boggles the mind. Far from reining in spending, large deficits will actually increase spending by sending interest costs on our debt skyrocketing. Discretionary spending over the past several years has, in fact, been held tightly in check, and nearly all new discretionary spending is allocated to defense and homeland security.

Mr. President, the only way I believe we can return to the path of long-term growth is by balancing our budget and by proving our ability to act as long-term stewards of our economy. Right now, the biggest drags on this economy are uncertainty and distrust. Corporate leaders remain uncertain about geopolitical developments, such as the war against Iraq, North Korea, India/Pakistan, and what might happen next, and the risk of domestic terrorism. They are holding off investments until those concerns abate. Consumers share similar concerns and fear the loss of jobs or further deterioration in their retirement savings. Remember, large companies have crashed--Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossings--and with them went retirement benefits. People have fear, and fear has entered the marketplace.

At the same time, small investors show little inclination to get back into the stock market as corporate scandals continue. So I believe the appropriate medicine for this uncertainty and distrust is strong regulatory action by agents such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Accounting Oversight Board, to increase accounting transparency and to stop corporate criminal behavior before it begins.

In the Senate, I have tried to push for corporate accountability in the energy sector. God knows it is necessary, and I hope to introduce an amendment on the energy bill.

The return of investor confidence will have a positive impact on our markets and our economy. Coupled with strong congressional leadership committed to keeping our budget in balance, I believe we can quickly return to healthy rates of economic growth.

What will not work, however, is further deficit spending for tax cuts we cannot afford. When I last voted for a tax cut in March of 2001, we were projected to run a $5.6 trillion surplus through 2010. Our economic outlook at that point could not be more different than our current circumstances.

Now we face cumulative deficits of approximately $2 trillion over 10 years, if interest costs are included. Those are unified deficits and do not reflect the one-time boost we are getting from surpluses in the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. If those surpluses were not included, our deficits over 10 years would add up to over $3 trillion.

Unfortunatey, Congress cannot ensure an immediate return to economic growth. What we can do, however, is prove to those Americans who contribute to the economy that Congress can properly manage the government's finances. Yet our current course is taking us in the opposite direction.

I urge my colleagues to oppose any new tax cuts, no matter what the size, and focus on laying the groundwork for a return to long-term economic growth.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I very much respect the Senator from Ohio. He has been both a distinguished mayor and a distinguished Governor of his State. I hate to disagree with him, but in this case I find the ethanol mandate in this bill to be egregious, to be wrongheaded, to be just terrible public policy. I will go through my concerns about this mandate point by point, and then I will end by offering a second-degree amendment.

My first concern is this: Only 2.1 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2002. The ethanol mandate before us requires 5 billion gallons by 2012.

This fuel additive is not necessary to make clean-burning gasoline. Yet it is mandated into our fuel supply. Under the credit trading provisions of the ethanol mandate, States are going to be forced to pay for ethanol whether they use it or not. Let me repeat that. Under the credit trading provisions in this bill, States are going to be forced to pay for it, whether they use it or not.

Secondly, this is going to drive up the price of gasoline. It can only do so. The Council of Economic Advisers and the Federal Trade Commission have advised President Bush that the ethanol mandate is:

Costly to both consumers and the Government and will

provide little environmental benefit.

So this provision will force up prices. California's costs are already high. I just paid $50 for a tank of gasoline when I was home in California. Wait until this bill goes into operation.

Ninety-nine percent of all ethanol production is based in the Midwest. States outside the Corn Belt have severe infrastructure and ethanol supply problems. This, too, means higher gas prices.

Finally, we have a dangerously high market concentration in this bill. The ethanol industry today is highly concentrated, with the largest supplier, Archer Daniels Midland, controlling 46 percent of the market, and the top seven firms controlling 71 percent of the market. That is according to the GAO.

ADM admitted to price fixing in 1996. Its executives went to jail. Last year, ADM purchased its largest competitor, Minnesota Corn Processers, which controlled 5 percent of the ethanol market. I believe we are taking a great risk by allowing one firm to control such a large percentage of the ethanol market, and this shows it: 46 percent, ADM; Williams Bio-Energy, 6 percent; Cargill, 5 percent; High Plains Corporation, 4 percent; New Energy Corporation, 4 percent; Midwest Grain, 3 percent; Chief Ethanol, 3 percent. These are the top seven ethanol producers in the United States.

So you have a huge market concentration by a company that pled guilty to price fixing. It makes me, a Californian, very uneasy about what the future may bring under current law.

Gasoline is taxed by the Federal Government at 18.4 cents per gallon. Yet gasoline blended with ethanol is only taxed at 13.1 cents per gallon. The other 5.3 cents per gallon is credited to ethanol producers instead of funding the highway trust fund. According to the Congressional Research Service, over the past 20 years, this ethanol subsidy has cost the highway trust fund over $11 billion in foregone income.

Under the proposal in the Energy Tax Bill, these ethanol subsidies will be paid not from the highway trust fund, as was before us last year, but from the general fund, at the expense of taxpayers. So instead of spending money for education or Cops on the Beat, or parks, we are funding ethanol with billions in subsidies. It makes no sense to me.

The Congressional Research Service has indicated that the ethanol mandate will cost approximately $7 billion. This means $7 billion is diverted away from either the highway trust fund or the general fund, which means either we will have fewer jobs and roads or taxpayers will have to pick up the tab.

As I said, this future $7 billion loss is on top of the $11 billion in gas tax revenue that has already been lost by giving ethanol a partial exemption from the fuel tax.

My sixth reason is that ethanol has mixed environmental and health results. Evidence suggests that ethanol reduces carbon monoxide air pollution. However, evidence also suggests that mandating more ethanol will produce more smog in the summer months because ethanol produces nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. Studies also show ethanol accelerates the ability of toxic gasoline additives, such as benzene, to break apart and seep into the ground water. Recently, the EPA disclosed that ethanol plants are emitting many more dangerous toxins than previously thought. I do not believe we should mandate so much use of something we know so little about.

One other thing on the benzene plumes, once they break away, they actually spread faster in water and soil than MTBE plumes. We know benzene is carcinogenic.

My seventh reason is that there is unprecedented liability protection. A safe harbor provision in the ethanol mandate will prevent legal redress if ethanol and other fuel additives harm the environment or public health. How

will communities afford cleanup costs if there is liability protection for ethanol? I find this really egregious.

This reduces carbon monoxide but it increases nitrous oxide. The benzene plumes will break away. They spread more rapidly than MTBE. They can pollute our ground water but there is no remedy. There is no liability. They are liability-free. One of the reasons you now have the large oil companies going along with this bill is because they have liability protection.

So we are mandating something we do not know all of the results of in huge amounts, that are unnecessary in the first place, that may have adverse consequences, and then we are saying to the consumer, sorry, the damage is your problem, you cannot even go to court to get redress in the form of damages. What a sweetheart bill. My goodness, people should be embarrassed.

Ethanol already has a high tariff to keep imports out. If there is an ethanol shortage in the United States, States will not be able to import ethanol from countries abroad because of a high 54-cent-per- gallon tariff on foreign ethanol. So what are they doing? They already have a high tariff on foreign ethanol. Now we are mandating 5 billion gallons? That is egregious. It is wrong public policy.

My ninth reason is an ethanol mandate will strain the fuel supply. Using ethanol will constrict the overall gasoline supply because mixing MTBE with gasoline produces more fuel than mixing gasoline with ethanol. Consequently, in a State such as California where you have no extra refinery availability, you have to produce more than you did with MTBE because of the properties of ethanol which take more gasoline. That is going to be a real problem and that, too, will force up prices.

Tenth, ethanol is not a renewable fuel. According to many scientists and experts, including Cornell Professor David Pimentel, it takes more energy to make ethanol than we save by using it. So we can hardly call ethanol a renewable fuel.

Eleven, the ethanol mandate will largely benefit producers, not farmers. Ethanol subsidies pay more money to ethanol producers like ADM than farmers.

Twelve, the bottom line, this is a very bad deal. The ethanol mandate reflects a deal worked out behind closed doors, between ethanol lobbyists and oil interests that is going to harm consumers. Mandating 5 billion gallons by 2012 is terrible public policy. Since there are high costs for States like California to comply with any mandated Federal fuel requirement, these costs will only be passed on to drivers at the pump.

The ethanol mandate, as I have said, will drive up the price of gasoline. Instead of imposing a new mandate on our fuel supply, we should be lifting the one that already exists.

On July 29, 1999, the nonpartisan broad-based U.S. EPA blue ribbon panel on oxygenates and gasoline recommended that the 2 percent oxygenate requirement be removed in order to provide flexibility to blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost-effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining air quality benefits.

It is long past the time for Congress to act on that. Instead of mandating ethanol into our fuel supply, we should be lifting all mandates or at least allow States a choice. We need to provide flexibility to refiners to allow them to optimize how and what they blend instead of forcing them to blend gasoline with MTBE or ethanol.

California has long sought a waiver of the 2 percent oxygenate requirement. I have written and called former EPA Administrator Browner and the current Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, both former President Clinton and President Bush, urging approval of the waiver for the State. Yet both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have denied California's request. I know during the Clinton years an affirmative finding came from EPA to the White House. I also know that Members of both parties went to the White House to stop it from happening. I believe EPA would have no objection.

In the campaign, when I heard both Al Gore and George Bush say: We are for ethanol--I thought, oh boy, here it comes. And here it is today.

MTBE, methyl tertiary butyl ether, has been the oxygenate of choice by main refiners in their effort to comply with the Clean Air Act's reformulated gasoline requirements. Governor Davis of California has ordered a phaseout of MTBE in our State by the end of this year while the Federal law requiring 2 percent oxygenate remains, putting our State in an untenable position. This is because the most likely substitute for MTBE to meet the 2 percent requirement is ethanol, but it is tremendously costly to blend ethanol from the Midwest into the specially formulated California gasoline.

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

California has developed a gasoline formula that provides flexibility and provides clean air. Refiners use an approach called the predictive model which guarantees clean-burning RFG gas with oxygenates, with less than 2 percent oxygenates and with no oxygenates.

As Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in March before the Energy 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 into which

oxygenates are added--typically meet RFG requirements before

oxygenates are added.

So they are not necessary. These facts demonstrate oxygenates are not necessary.

I believe it is egregious to require this Nation to use more ethanol than we need in our fuel supply. Mandating 5 billion gallons into our fuel supply is terrible public policy. This amounts to a wealth transfer of billions of dollars from every State in the Nation to a handful of ethanol producers. It is families and businesses who will pay the higher costs that result from increased gas prices.

This sweeping policy will have long-term repercussions in our environment, on our health, our fuel supply, and the price of gasoline. Since ethanol production is subsidized by the Government with a credit from the Federal motor fuels tax, $1 for ethanol firms like ADM means $1 less to improve our Nation's roads and bridges.

The Congressional Research Service has indicated the ethanol mandate in this energy bill will divert $7 billion away from the highway trust fund. If the energy tax bill is passed into law, this money will no longer come from the highway trust fund. It will come from the general fund. As I said, it will be paid for by taxpayers.

This future $7 billion payout is on top of the $11 billion in gas tax revenue that has already been lost by giving ethanol a partial exemption from the fuel tax. Ethanol is a subsidized product. It is protected from foreign competition by high trade barriers. And now we are going to mandate a market for it. This is unconscionable. Forcing States to use ethanol we do not need, and forcing States to pay for ethanol we do not use amounts to a transfer of wealth from all States to Midwest corn States.

Under the credit trading provisions in this bill, if we do not use ethanol, we still have to pay for it.

Proponents of the ethanol mandate argue that gas price increases will be minimal, but the projections do not take into consideration the real-world infrastructure constraints and concentration in the market that can lead to price spikes. I believe everyone outside of the Midwest will have to grapple with how to bring ethanol to their States since the Midwest controls 99 percent of the production.

California has done more analysis than any other State on what it will take to get ethanol to the State. The bottom line is that it cannot happen without raising gasoline prices.

I am particularly concerned, as I pointed out, about the limited number of suppliers in the ethanol market. This leaves consumers vulnerable to price spikes as it did when electricity and natural gas prices soared in the West because a few out-of-State generating firms dominated the market. If we have learned anything from the recent western energy crisis, it is that when there is not ample supply and adequate competition in the market, prices soar and consumers pay.

I also mention that Archer Daniels Midland is the dominant producer in the highly concentrated ethanol market. It has purchased its largest competitor. It controls 46 percent of the market, and that is only what is now produced. The company has an even greater control over how ethanol is distributed and marketed.

I am also concerned about the long-term effects of mandating such a large amount of ethanol in our gasoline supply.

I mentioned the health effects about which we do not know much. I mentioned the environmental effects.

The scientific evidence is mixed. I believe it is bad public policy to mandate this amount before scientific and health experts can fully investigate the impact of ethanol on the air we breathe and the water we drink.

We made this mistake with MTBE and now we have learned that MTBE may well be a human carcinogen.

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, and it has an especially pernicious effect on the elderly, on children, and individuals with existing respiratory problems, as I mentioned, such as asthma.

Earlier this month, the American Lung Association named California the smoggiest State, by listing nine counties and six metropolitan areas 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

emissions.

Nitrogen oxides, as we have said, 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?

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. All we should care about is if the clean air standards are met. Let the States have the flexibility. If we are mandating, 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 ground water supplies. The EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates found ethanol:

. . . may retard biodegradation and increase movement of

benzene and other hydrocarbons around leaking tanks.

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 that 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, and we are giving them liability protection.

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

When gasoline that contains ethanol is released into ground

water, 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.

For these reasons, I cannot support the amendment offered by the majority leader. I would like to offer a second-degree amendment that would require the Governor of a State to opt into the ethanol mandate. If the ethanol mandate is such a great mandate, then Governors should want to include their States in it. Why are we forcing them to do it? Everybody who comes down here for ethanol says it is the best thing since sliced bread. If it is so good, let that case be made to the Governors of States and let them opt into the program.

The Senators from Alaska and Hawaii have worked it out so that their States are exempted from this mandate. I believe each and every State should have this choice, so I am sending an amendment to the desk at this time that would do the same thing that Alaska and Hawaii have achieved. The Governor is able to opt into the mandate. If this is so wonderful, Governors will opt in. If it is not, Governors will not.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask the floor leader, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, what is his pleasure? I understand there are no votes today. Shall I ask the amendment be set aside?

I thank the Senator.

Earlier this morning I sent to the desk my amendment numbered 542. There is no unanimous consent agreement. I withdraw that amendment at this time because it is scheduled for a vote at 7:30 tonight and Members are not yet returned from the codel. Therefore, they would have no advance warning of the amendment. I will do it at another time. Therefore, I withdraw amendment No. 542.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to make a few comments as a member of the Energy Committee on the energy bill that is on the floor and which will be subject to amendment tomorrow morning. I believe the ethanol amendment will be taken up.

There is an overarching possibility in this energy bill. It can provide the opportunity to properly fix the badly broken energy market, to reduce our consumption of oil, and to increase energy production while protecting our environment and addressing climate change. But at this point, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 is missing much of what is needed for a balanced, comprehensive energy policy for this Nation.

I voted against the bill in the Energy Committee because of what is missing. I look forward to the opportunity to amend this legislation.

First, I believe the bill needs stronger consumer protection to fix our broken energy market and to prevent another energy crisis like the one we experienced in the West.

Second, we must increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles to reduce the amount of oil we consume, to lessen the amount of carbon dioxide, the No. 1 greenhouse gas released into our atmosphere, and to save families and businesses money at the pump.

Third, we must increase our energy production while protecting our environment. This means not infringing on environmentally sensitive areas such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge or the water off the California and Florida coasts.

Fourth, we should address global warming and establish plans to combat climate change.

Fifth, we must encourage the development of new renewable power from solar, from wind, and from geothermal resources instead of continuing to subsidize traditional production from nuclear power, for example.

Three years ago this month, California's energy market began to spiral out of control. In May of 2000, families and businesses in San Diego saw their energy bill soar. The Western energy crisis forced every family and business to pay for more energy. The crisis forced the State of California into a severe budget shortfall. It forced the State's largest utility into bankruptcy and nearly bankrupted the second largest utility. Now, 3 years and $45 billion in cost later, we have learned how the energy market in California was gamed and abused.

In March, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued the ``Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets which confirmed that there was widespread and pervasive fraud and manipulation during the Western energy crisis. The abuse of our energy market was so pervasive and unlawful. Yet this energy bill does not go far enough to prevent another Western energy crisis and to curb illegal Enron-type manipulation.

Remember, this type of fraud and abuse was not limited to just Enron. There was fraud and abuse across the board, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. One of the best examples of this illegal behavior is demonstrated by the transcript from Reliant Energy that revealed how their traders intentionally withheld power from the California market in an attempt to increase prices. This is one of the most egregious examples of manipulation, and it is clear and convincing evidence of coordinated schemes to defraud consumers.

Let me read one part of the transcript to demonstrate the greed behind the market abuse by Reliant and its traders.

On June 20, 2000, two Reliant employees had the following conversation that revealed the company withheld power from the California market to drive prices up.

Reliant Operations Manager 1: I don't necessarily foresee

those units being run the remainder of this week. In fact you

will probably see, in fact I know, tomorrow we have all the

units at Coolwater off.

The Coolwater plant is a 526 megawatt plant.

Reliant Plant Operator 2: Really?

Reliant Operations Manager 1: Potentially. Even number

four. More due to some market manipulation attempts on our

part. And so, on number four it probably wouldn't last long.

It would probably be back on the next day, if not the day

after that. Trying to uh. . .

Reliant Plant Operator 2: Trying to shorten supply, uh?

That way the price on demand goes up.

Reliant Operations Manager 1: Well, we'll see.

Reliant Plant Operator 2: I can understand. That's cool.

Reliant Operations Manager 1: We've got some term positions

that, you know, that would benefit.

Six months after this incident, as the Senate Energy Committee was attempting to get to the bottom of why energy prices were soaring in the West, the president and CEO of Reliant testified before Congress that the State of California ``has focused on an inaccurate perception of market manipulation.''

Reliant's president and CEO went on to say, ``We are proud of our contributions to keep generation running to try to meet the demand for power in California. Reliant Energy's plant and technical staffs have worked hard to maximize the performance of our generation.''

These transcripts prove otherwise and reveal the truth about market manipulation in the energy sector.

Yet FERC refused to find and consider all evidence of fraud and manipulation and the State of California was forced to take the commission to court to ensure FERC would carry out its public duty to fully investigate the western energy crisis and punish wrongdoing. Only when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled FERC had to allow the California parties to collect and submit evidence did we find more instances of pervasive illegal behavior.

After a 100-day discovery period that ended March 3, 2003, the State of California, the California attorney general's office, and the state's largest utilities filed over 3,000 pages of evidence at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to show how fraud and manipulation was pervasive throughout the western energy crisis of 2000-2001. The market abuse was not limited to a few rogue traders at one firm, but was a widespread series of schemes perpetuated by many employees across most companies that supplied and traded in the West.

During their discovery period, the ``California parties'' found the following information:

Details on new specific incidents when energy companies intentionally held their plants offline to drive prices up during 2000 and 2001; new transcripts of conversations between energy company employees revealing an intent to defraud and manipulate the California market; new evidence of document destruction by energy companies to hide details of their behavior in the western energy market; and new evidence laying out possible anti-trust violations by energy companies.

I ask unaminous consent that a copy of the report my office issued when the ``Protective Order'' was lifted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the evidence of fraud and abuse submitted is really quite extraordinary.

Yet this energy bill doesn't prevent the type of gaming that went on during the energy crisis. The bill only bans one type of specific manipulation--wash trades in the electricity market--but it does not address the natural gas market, nor does it prevent other forms of fraud and manipulation that took place in California and were detailed in memos released by Enron--``Fat Boy,'' ``Ricochet,'' ``Death Star,'' and ``Get Shorty.''

Furthermore, I am concerned that at this time of great crisis in the energy industry, this energy legislation rolls back the Public Utility Holding Company Act--PUCHA--without giving FERC the ability to review mergers and acquisitions in the energy sector. I will support an amendment to be offered by Senator Bingaman on this issue to ensure the consumer protections granted by PUCHA are not repealed.

I am also disappointed that this bill does not increased automobile fuel efficiency to reduce our consumption of oil. The single most effective way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to equalize the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks with that of passenger cars.

Senator Olympia Snowe and I introduced bipartisan legislation in January to close the SUV Loophole and since that time 16 other Senators have signed onto our bill. Closing the SUV loophole would: Save the U.S. 1 million barrels of oil a day and reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports by 10 percent; prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming--from entering the atmosphere each year; and save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy--CAFE--standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road--they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars.

Today, our roads look much different--SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States.

As a result, the overall fuel economy of our nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades--because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.

Rather than increasing fuel economy, however, this energy bill makes it more difficult for the Department of Transportation to increase CAFE standards in the future by including a new list of criteria the Department must consider when revising standards.

We need to be responsible and increase fuel efficiency, not create more barriers to increase CAFE standards.

I believe a comprehensive energy policy can promote the development of new energy supplies while protecting our most precious natural areas.

Yet this energy bill requires an inventory of all oil and gas resources under the Outer Continental Shelf. This inventory is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine long-standing and bipartisan moratorium protection. Areas off the West and East Coasts are currently off limits to drilling, and we do not want that to change.

Even if we ignore the implications of this study on moratorium areas, the inventory itself threatens precious coastal resources with invasive technologies. The coastal states have made it clear that they oppose oil development in these areas, and I believe the States' views should be respected.

I strongly believe that a comprehensive energy bill cannot ignore global climate change, yet this bill does nothing to decrease global warming.

The International Panel on Climate Change estimates that the Earth's average temperature could rise by as much as 10 degrees in the next 100 years--the most rapid change in 10,000 years.

This would have a major effect on our way of life. It would melt the polar ice caps, decimate our coastal cities, and cause global climate change.

We are already seeing the effects of warming.

In November, the Los Angeles Times published an article about the vanishing glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana. Over a century ago, 150 of these magnificent glaciers could be seen on the high cliffs and jagged peaks of the surrounding mountains of the park. Today, there are only 35. And these 35 glaciers that remain today are disintegrating so quickly that scientists estimate the park will have no glaciers in 30 years.

This melting seen in Glacier National Park can also be seen around the world, from the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania to the ice fields beneath Mt. Everest in the Himalayas. Experts also predict that glaciers in the high Andes, the Swiss Alps, and even Iceland could disappear in coming decades as well. These dwindling glaciers offer the clearest and most visible sign of climate change in America and the rest of the world.

Yet the administration has walked away from the negotiating table for the Kyoto Protocol. This is a big mistake. The United States is now the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy. We should be a leader when it comes to combating global warming.

I strongly believe that we can do more to encourage the development of renewable power. Solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass are generating electricity for homes and businesses nationwide and we need an energy policy that not only provides tax incentives for their continued development, but also requires their use. I strongly believe it is in the public interest for our nation to stop subsidizing costly nuclear plants and require greater development of renewable resources.

However, this energy bill does not include a Renewable Portfolio Standard to require the use of a certain percentage of energy to be generated from renewable resources. I support such a standard and believe it should be part of our energy policy. Unfortunately the energy bill currently has an over-reliance on promoting traditional energy resources.

Take the nuclear power section of the bill for example. The energy bill provides a new subsidy program to provide loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of financial assistance to subsidize the construction of new nuclear plants. These subsidies will be allowed to cover up to half the cost of developing and constructing a nuclear power plant, including any costs resulting from licensing and regulatory delays. Since nuclear power plants cost approximately $6 billion to build, these subsidies could inflict a tremendous burden on the taxpayer.

For these reasons I voted against this energy bill in the Senate Energy Committee. I look forward to the opportunity to improve it on the Floor.

I strongly believe our nation needs an energy policy that will protect consumers, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and promote new energy development while protecting our environment. If our energy legislation cannot accomplish these objectives it will be an unbalanced and incomplete energy policy.

Thank you and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 537.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer a substitute amendment to S. 113, the Kyl-Schumer FISA bill. I ask you to bear with me because the explanation goes on for a while.

I am also pleased that Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, and Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, are cosponsors of this amendment. I am pleased to also acknowledge that Senators Dodd, Edwards, Feingold, Boxer, and Wyden are also cosponsors of the amendment.

Let me try to briefly describe the difference between current law, S. 113, and my amendment.

S. 113 is the Kyl-Schumer FISA amendment. First, the Kyl-Schumer amendment only applies to non-U.S. persons. I want to make clear that it does not cover green card holders under that amendment.

Under current law, the FISA court may only grant a FISA application against a non-U.S. person if the Government can show probable cause that the target is working on behalf of a foreign power or a terrorist group. The Government also has to certify that it is seeking foreign intelligence information that can't be obtained by any other means.

As I understand the Kyl-Schumer bill, it drops a primary requirement for FISA warrants; that is, the individual or the target be agents of a foreign power. Under Kyl-Schumer, this prerequisite is gone. That is what the so-called lone wolf deals with.

This would then give the FISA court no discretion to deny applications for FISA orders against a true so-called lone wolf. These are alleged international terrorists operating completely on their own. This is confusing. In other words, current law gives the FISA court no discretion to grant FISA orders in closed cases. But S. 113--Kyl- Schumer--gives judges no discretion to deny FISA the FISA court application in closed cases. Both of these circumstances raise certain problems.

My amendment is essentially a compromise. It grants the court a presumption. So the FISA court may presume that a target is an agent of a foreign power, or the court may choose not to invoke that presumption. The bottom line is the court is given some discretion.

In other words, the court may choose to grant a FISA order despite a lack of evidence that a target is working on behalf of a foreign power. Similarly, the court may choose to deny an order against a true lone wolf. It is up to the court.Federal judges in title III criminal cases have similar discretion. Although the standard there is about whether the Government can show probable cause that a person has committed a crime or will commit a crime, that is a very different standard than under FISA. Federal judges have not abused that discretion and, in fact, in rare cases have been able to act as a check on the Government to prevent overreaching and abuse.

Why do the sponsors of S. 113 show less trust for FISA judges in the FISA content? In fact, such trust is even more warranted in the FISA content. Not only is the FISA process secret and hard to keep accountable, but the FISA court has only denied one FISA application in its 25-year history.

Such a lack of trust is even less necessary given the fact that even if the Government is unable to get a FISA order against a target, it remains completely free to use all the tools of the criminal process under title III to get search and wiretap orders against the target.

The bottom line is, our amendment preserves FISA's agent-of-a- foreign-power requirement without jeopardizing our security. Our amendment allows the Government to get FISA orders against suspected international terrorists even in close cases where the Government cannot show the target is working on behalf of a foreign power or terrorist group. However, unlike S. 113, the amendment also ensures the FISA court is more than a rubberstamp and has discretion to deny a FISA application if the Government overreaches by attempting to use FISA authority.

I now would like to discuss the issue in somewhat greater detail.

Mr. President, at times of crisis, it is possible the Government can overreach in both legislative and executive decisionmaking with respect to our criminal and intelligence laws. That can have unfortunate consequences for both our security and individual rights.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was passed in 1978. It was the first statute ever passed in

the United States to provide a statutory procedure for the authorization of clandestine activities of our Government to obtain foreign intelligence.

Before it passed, then-Attorney General Griffin Bell testified in favor of the bill before Congress. He noted the ``delicate balance'' that needed to be struck between ``adequate intelligence to guarantee our Nation's security on the one hand and preservation of basic human rights on the other.''

He stated:

In my view this bill strikes the balance, sacrifices

neither our security nor our civil liberties, and assures

that the abuses of the past will remain in the past. . . .

Now, what does he mean by ``abuses of the past''? Decades earlier, America saw what happened in World War II with Japanese Americans who were removed from their homes, their businesses, and their schools, and placed in interment camps in violation of their rights. We do not want that to happen ever again in this country.

I am not saying this is an identically similar situation. I am concerned, however, about zealousness and overreach because now we are engaged in a global war on terror. In conducting this war, we must be careful that we not overreach when the temptations are so great.

This kind of war is unprecedented for the United States. It is unprecedented and unbelievable that anybody could fly four big planes, three into buildings, and kill 3,000 people. This is beyond our ken. America and Americans want to protect our homeland and our individuals, notwithstanding this is an entirely secret process and, as such, the laws that govern it must be balanced, must be carefully crafted, and must prevent it, lest someone use them to overreach. It has happened in the past, so you can assume it could well happen in the future. This is especially true, as I said, with FISA.

I supported reporting S. 113, the Kyl-Schumer FISA bill we are debating, in the Judiciary Committee. I agree with my colleagues--there is a clear problem here, needing a solution; namely, the potential difficulty the Government may have in obtaining FISA orders against certain international terrorist so-called ``lone wolves.'' These are people who have no affiliation with a terrorist group, no affiliation as an agent of a foreign power.

Under FISA, a ``foreign power'' is simply defined as ``two people conspiring,'' so it is a very easy goal and target. A problem arises in cases where the Government knows of a foreign individual who may be involved in terrorism but cannot yet prove a connection to foreign groups or governments. This problem stems from the proof requirement under FISA in current law.

To get a FISA order against a foreign visitor to the United States under current law, the Government needs to show two key things:

First, that the individual is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Again, that is defined as two people working together. A foreign power could be a foreign government or an international terrorist group as defined.

And second, that it is seeking ``foreign intelligence information'' that cannot be obtained by other means.

This symbolizes the very purpose of FISA: to gather foreign intelligence. Criminal courts are for criminal cases, and the FISA court was set up specially to deal with cases where the Government wishes to obtain information or intelligence about the activities of foreign powers.

The problem is this: Under this current standard, it may well be difficult for the Government to meet the foreign power requirement if the Government does not yet have enough evidence of a connection to a foreign group, entity, or power. Some have described this problem as the ``false lone wolf'' problem, where you have an individual who may appear at first to be operating as a ``lone wolf,'' even though that individual is really an agent of a larger group.

That was one of the alleged problems with the pre-September 11 investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui. The FBI did not learn until after September 11 that Moussaoui had links to al-Qaida and may have been the intended 20th hijacker.

As a result, the Government may have been reluctant to request a FISA warrant because they did not think the intelligence they had could connect Moussaoui to an international group or government.

So there is no question in my mind that we need to amend FISA to fix this problem. And I applaud my colleagues, Senators Kyl and Schumer, for working so diligently to solve it. But the Kyl-Schumer bill also redefines ``agent of a foreign power'' to include any non-U.S. individual preparing to engage in international terrorism. In other words, it essentially eliminates the foreign power requirement altogether.

This change would allow the Government to get a FISA search or wiretap order against any foreign individual in the United States who is preparing to engage in international terrorism, regardless of whether the person is really an agent of a foreign government or terror group, and regardless of whether there is any potential to gather foreign intelligence.

Again, it is this foreign intelligence component that defines the very purpose of FISA. As a result, I believe this change goes too far.

Under S. 113, for the first time ever, the Government will be able to use FISA against any non-U.S. citizen preparing to engage in international terrorism--even individuals whom the Government knows have no connection at all to anyone else engaged in international terrorism.

There would be no check at all on the Government's use of FISA against many common criminals who just happen to be noncitizens and, therefore, the Government might be able to use this secret FISA court to obtain warrants that: (A) are easier to get; (B) last longer; and (C) are less subject to normal judicial scrutiny than criminal warrants under title III or regular criminal statutes.

FISA wiretap orders, for instance, are good for 4 times longer than normal criminal warrants--120 days versus 30 days--giving the Government a clear incentive to use this process even against common criminals. These orders can be reauthorized indefinitely each year for 1-year periods. The same is true for physical search orders under FISA, although these are good for 90 days, and 1-year extensions are subject to the requirement in current law that the judge find ``probable cause to believe that no property of any United States person will be acquired during the period.''

Under FISA, as modified by S. 113, the Government must show by probable cause only that a foreign national is engaged in international terrorism or preparation thereof. You might listen to that and you might think: What is wrong with that? We all want that. I want it, too. But in many instances, this probable cause standard will be easier to meet than the traditional criminal probable cause standard.

For example, for a title III wiretap, the Government must show that there is probable cause to believe an individual is about to commit or has committed an enumerated crime. To get a search order, the Government must show probable cause that the search will result in the discovery of offending items connected with the criminal activity. However, under S. 113, the Government need only show probable cause that the person is engaging in ``activities in preparation'' for international terrorism. Many ``activities in preparation'' for international terrorism are not crimes.

For example, a foreign visitor who bought a one-way airline ticket and a box cutter would arguably qualify as a person engaging in activities in preparation for international terrorism, even in the absence of other evidence that he or she might be an international terrorist.

However, these two activities, taken alone, would clearly not demonstrate probable cause that the person would commit a crime. These activities may be entirely innocent. As a result--and I don't believe this is anyone's intent--S. 113 could easily serve as a clarion call to all aggressive prosecutors who want to listen in on or search the homes of targets of investigation without ever having to prove that any crime may be committed or that foreign intelligence may be gathered.

By allowing FISA to be used against all solo suspected international terrorists, S. 113 runs counter to the whole purpose of FISA, which is to allow the Government to get foreign intelligence by searching and wiretapping people

working for other countries and groups against U.S. interests.

S. 113 essentially eliminates any discretion the FISA court has to turn down a case--this is my big problem with it--thus enabling the Government to overreach. I am not saying that it will overreach. But because it is a secret process, the laws we pass have to prevent that overreach.

By nullifying the requirement that the target of an investigation has some connection, any connection, to a foreign entity or government, this legislation essentially makes the FISA court a rubberstamp. The court will be required to grant a FISA order, even if there is no probable cause to indicate a connection to a foreign power; indeed, even if there is clear evidence that the individual is operating completely on their own. In fact, even if the Government admits that the terrorist is operating alone and that there is no foreign intelligence to be gathered, the FISA court must still grant the order under S. 113.

That is not what FISA is meant to be. Put simply: The legislation goes too far.

Let me be clear: We who are sponsoring this amendment are not trying to protect international terrorists, and our amendment does nothing to protect them. The vast resources of the Federal Government and the powerful tools of the criminal process remain available to target and investigate any terrorist against whom the Government is unable to get a FISA order.

What our amendment will do is retain the original purpose of FISA-- the seeking of foreign intelligence. S. 113 would not.

Our amendment is simple. Rather than simply eliminating the foreign power requirement altogether, our amendment would allow the FISA court judge to presume that a foreign terrorist is also an agent of a foreign power, even if there is no evidence supporting that presumption. On the other hand, under our amendment, the FISA court could also refuse to presume this connection in troubling cases of Government overreach. Thus, a FISA court judge would have some discretion.

What does this mean? In the Moussaoui case, for instance, even though the Government did not yet have evidence that Moussaoui was acting as an agent of a foreign power, both our amendment and S. 113 would allow the Government to get a warrant. The only difference is that our amendment would allow the judge to carefully look at the case and, if the court determined Moussaoui was clearly acting alone, the warrant could be denied.

I know some will argue that this casts too much doubt upon the outcome of cases and that, as a result, FISA orders will be too hard to obtain. But in most cases, if you think about it, the outcome will be exactly the same, whether under our amendment or the underlying bill.

Others may argue that this amendment might give liberal judges too much power to deny FISA orders in every case or, as Senator Schumer put it today, ``inject gray into the statute.'' But in reality, I believe these judges should have some discretion. This is an entirely secret process. By providing this presumption, we give judges that discretion. That is, in fact, a good thing.

Liberal judges can always find ways to deny a FISA order, even under S. 113, if they are determined to do so. For instance, a judge could simply decide there is no probable cause showing that an individual is engaged in international terrorism. That is a requirement in both S. 113 and our amendment.

The bottom line is that we can and should preserve the foreign power requirement of FISA without jeopardizing our security. Under either approach, the Government will be able to get FISA orders against international terrorists, even if the Government cannot meet the foreign power requirement.

Bottom line, again: The only difference between the two approaches is that our amendment preserves some limited discretion so the FISA court could stop the Government from overreaching against those individuals who have no connection to a foreign conspiracy. Let me say, if they have no connection to a foreign conspiracy, you can get the title III criminal warrant.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and, therefore, support the underlying purposes of FISA.

I yield the floor.

I yield such time as the Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, requires.

I am happy to yield as much time as the Senator requires.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his personal comments. He knows I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him. It is unusual--as a matter of fact, I cannot remember in all these years when we have ever been on opposite sides of one of these questions.

Let me state to the Senator my great fear. We all forget beneath the surface this Government has tremendous power. When that power is exercised against a person in this country, alone as a visitor, has no rights, it is enormous what can happen. What my deep concern is that overzealous prosecutors will use this where they should use title III and get a criminal warrant instead of a FISA warrant because of the removal of the agent of the foreign power. We keep the connection with the basics of the FISA statute which is surveillance related to an agent of the foreign power. We keep that. That is the justification for FISA. We give the judge the ability to make that as a presumption-- ergo, giving the judge some discretion not to make it, and therefore the individual seeks the warrant--an FBI agent or whoever it is--goes to title III and gets a criminal warrant.

Once you get a FISA warrant, the benefits from the law enforcement side of the FISA warrant are much greater than the title III warrant.

It is a small protection. I don't believe, in my heart of hearts--and if this were to pass and the Senator from Arizona showed me that it did in any way prevent the FISA court from exercising its discretion just as you want it to, I will change it. I would be the first one to come back.

It prevents this misuse of a prosecutor who should be getting a title III warrant, who will come to the FISA court instead because the FISA court will be a rubberstamp, and because myself, a visiting Indian, Pakistani, Muslim, Frenchman, Italian, anybody in Los Angeles who happens to have in their pocket a one-way ticket and maybe a pocket knife--a box cutter may be out of date--and somebody has a suspicion, they do not have to prove anything. And they can surveil me, they can wiretap me, they can exert all of the surveillance powers that are used under FISA. They do not know whether I am going to commit a criminal act and they have no evidence of anything else. That is what title III is for. Title III has a little heavier cause burden, but as the Senator said, there is probable cause in both.

But the benefits of the FISA warrant are superior to the benefits of the title III warrant in their duration. So you can do all this to somebody for 90 days instead of 30 days and you do not have to come back and renew the warrant once every year. That is my concern.

As I read your legislation, there is no discretion. That is the problem I have with it. This is such a slight change, it is kind of a little tweak that a judge can say, hey, now, let's wait and see what you are doing here.

If the Senator would like to respond, I am happy to yield.

The presumption would be that the target or the individual would be an agent of a foreign power. Otherwise, you could have this against the Unabomber, Oklahoma City. Of course, they are American citizens, so I understand that does not apply, but that same kind of situation.

What I don't understand is why you do not want to give the judge that small bit of discretion with a presumption. The judge can presume it. We both know the history and the history is 100 percent if you include the appeal of FISA judges in granting warrants. So there will not be a problem there.

I am concerned about the overreach. I am concerned about the misuse. And the only way we could figure to counter that was to keep the agent a foreign power, provide this presumption that a judge could use in that one case.

Senator, neither you nor Senator Feingold nor I would ever know if there was an overreach. That is what makes this far more dangerous, the fact that it is so secret.

I will yield time, Mr. President, and I will be very happy to have Senator Feingold in this.

I think this is really the kind of discussion that we should be having. I welcome the free flow.

If I knew a better way of solving the problem Senator Kyl mentioned, I would do it. But my view and what Intelligence staff and others have said to me is that the way it is worded creates a rubberstamp out of a FISA judge, once you take out that agent of a foreign power connection. I guess the reason they believe that is that it puts them into the other side, the title III side.

If I could think of another way, I would. But it is one added guarantee against an overreach. You and I have both known zealous prosecutors. You and I have both known people who would misuse this. The question comes, How do we prevent misuse from happening?

I am happy to yield to Senator Feingold.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I know Senator Rockefeller is on his way.

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

Through the Chair, I think we can yield back the remainder of our time, I say to the Senator, and hold the vote, if everybody so desires.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Hutchison for her work on the Air Cargo Security Act. Last year this bill passed the Senate and I look forward to passing this legislation again today. Hopefully the House will take up this legislation promptly and send it to the President's desk.

Earlier this year Senator Hutchison and I released a report from the General Accounting Office that demonstrates why the Congress and the Transportation Security Administration must--together--move quickly to shore up our vulnerabilities to protect against another terrorist attack.

I strongly believe that we must increase our defenses across the board to anticipate the next attack, not just correct the vulnerabilities that were already exploited by terrorists on September 11.

After September 11, Congress moved quickly to federalize the airport security screening workforce to prevent more hijackings, but we have not done enough to increase our air cargo security.

The General Accounting Office report shows that Congress must require the TSA to develop a strategic plan to screen and inspect air cargo to protect our Nation's air transportation system. According to this report, our air cargo system remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack because:

First, there aren't enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the ``known shipper'' program has taken the proper steps to protect against use by terrorists;

Second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where cargo transfers from company to company;

Third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks, and they do not always have their identification verified;

Fourth, and most importantly, most cargo shipped by air is never screened.

To address these problems, the GAO recommends that the Transportation Security Administration develop a comprehensive plan for improving air cargo security.

The air cargo legislation we are passing today, directs the TSA to: Develop a strategic plan to ensure the security of all air cargo; establish an industry-wide pilot program database of known shippers; set up a training program for handlers to learn how to safeguard cargo from tampering; and inspect air cargo shipping facilities on a regular basis.

The Aviation Security Act Congress passed after September 11 required the Transportation Security Administration to screen and inspect air cargo ``as soon as practicable.'' The GAO report shows we cannot wait any longer. The time is now for the Senate to again take up this legislation, again pass this legislation, and for the TSA to prevent terrorists from tampering with the cargo loaded into the underbelly of our airplanes.

The General Accounting Office recommends that the Under Secretary for Transportation develop a comprehensive plan for air cargo security that includes priority actions identified on the basis of risk, costs, deadlines for completing those actions, and performance targets.

The TSA has a great deal of options at its disposal. The TSA could: Screen air cargo for explosives; secure cargo with high-tech seals; control access to holding areas containing cargo; use cargo tracking systems; install more cameras in cargo areas at airports; use blast resistant containers; have more bomb-sniffing dogs; put cargo in decompression chambers before loading it onto an aircraft; require the identity of people making air cargo deliveries to be checked; establish an industrywide computer profiling system; require criminal background checks for employees at freight forwarders and consolidators; and require third party inspections.

We do not expect the TSA to X-ray and scan all cargo for explosives because shippers and carriers would be able to process only 4 percent of cargo received daily, which would severely disrupt the air cargo industry. However, the Federal Government can deploy a combination of the techniques I have listed to implement a comprehensive security plan for air cargo.

Since one half of the hull of each passenger aircraft is typically filled with cargo and 22 percent of all cargo transported by plane is loaded on passenger flights, I believe air cargo security is just as important as passenger security. In fact, you cannot keep passengers safe without stronger air cargo security.

Each time there is a major jet crash or bombing, we reexamine our aviation security. I hope it will not take another accident or attack for us to finally pass this legislation into law.

I thank Senator Hutchison, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings for their leadership on this issue of transportation security, and I look forward to this bill being signed into law.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the efforts of the more than 60,000 men, women, and children who will be meeting at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum at Exposition Park on Saturday, May 10, 2003, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Revlon Run/Walk and to raise funds for women's cancers. The largest 5K event in the Nation, the Revlon Run/Walk, presented by the Entertainment Industry Foundation, EFT, and cochaired by Ellen Barkin, Ronald O. Perelman and Lilly Tartikoff, will raise funds to target research that will contribute to the development of important new therapies, such as Herceptin to treat breast cancer, the first in the wave of new targeted cancer treatments.

To date, the Revlon Run/Walk in Los Angeles and New York has raised more than $27 million since its beginning in Los Angeles a decade ago. The Revlon Run/Walk in Los Angeles will be hosted by Debra Messing and Billy Crystal along with Revlon spokespersons Karen Duffy and Jaime King.

The Los Angeles area beneficiaries for 2003 include: The Revlon/UCLA Women's Cancer Research Program, National Women's Cancer Research Alliance (NWCRA), the Wellness Community, WIN Against Breast Cancer, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital Ovarian & Breast Cancer Program, the UCLA Digital Mammography Program, T.H.E., The Help Everyone, Clinic, Inc., Los Angeles Breast Cancer Alliance, John Wayne Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Research Program, Women of Color Breast Cancer Survivors Support Program, Team Survivor Los Angeles, Providence Saint Joseph Foundation, Art of Healing--Women's Health, Gilda Radner Ovarian and Breast Cancer Detection Program at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Asian Pacific Health Care Venture, Inc. (ACPHCV), and weSpark.

Today, 1 in 27 American women will die of breast cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, every 2.5 minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, every 13 minutes a woman dies of breast cancer, and this year alone 54,100 women will lose their lives to breast and ovarian cancer. For a woman with ovarian cancer today, there is still no method of early detection.

In my home State of California, the American Cancer Society is predicting this year that more than 26,300 women will be diagnosed with breast and other women cancers and more than 5,500 grandmothers, mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, and friends will die.

The facts serve as a reminder that there is still so much to be done. Mammograms are a proven method of early detection. Unfortunately a large portion of women are not getting screened.

The continuing fight requires many levels of commitment and I want to congratulate all those individuals involved in this worthwhile event as they celebrate both Mother's Day and the 10-year anniversary of the Revlon Run/Walk. The thousands running in Los

Angeles represent the millions hoping for an end to cancer. I, too, look forward to a day without cancer.