Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2011.

This legislation will make it easier for communities to build infrastructure and grow by allowing to access federal loan guarantees when they conserve land to mitigate the impacts to the environment and endangered species.

This bill creates a ten year pilot program, to be administered jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors of Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term ``incidental take permit''. More than 500 such plans have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, providing protection for nearly 50 million acres of habitat nationwide and allowing development and infrastructure to proceed.

Equally important, HCPs are very effective in avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with on-going infrastructure construction and development activity.

In California, the Western Riverside County Multiple-Species HCP is a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and animals. At the same time, it is building its infrastructure and transportation needs for the next century.

To date, more than 40,000 acres of property have been conserved. In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental impacts has facilitated the development of much-needed transportation infrastructure.

Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties, with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this explosive population growth, neither environmental or livability goals will be attained.

Owing to the economic downturn, however, the pace of habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly-situated communities has slowed to a crawl. Revenue which had been generated to finance acquisition of habitat during periods of robust development has also slowed to a trickle, at just the moment when real estate values are at historic lows.

Ready access to capital during this period would enable Western Riverside to complete its habitat acquisition program for half of what it was estimated to cost in 2008, for a savings of $2 billion.

Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the bill would entail no federal expenditure unless the local government defaulted a very rare occurrence.

The Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at reduced rates of interest, enabling these communities to take advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the Federal taxpayer protection of more habitat more quickly, accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum environmental impact, and reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will encourage development and growth and conservation of land and protection of endangered species, at minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the Federal local partnership that we need to use to maximize efficient use of Federal dollars.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak to the war on women's health and Planned Parenthood.

To be clear, to end Federal funding for Planned Parenthood is to stop providing critical health care to millions of Americans, the majority of them who are poor and simply cannot afford services anywhere else.

This effort will strip the poor and middle classes of their right to preventive healthcare.

Through 800 nationwide locations, Planned Parenthood provides cancer screening, HIV and STD tests, contraceptives, education and empowerment.

Planned Parenthood estimates it prevents over 620,000 unintended pregnancies and 220,000 abortions each year.

Seventy-five percent of its clients are at or below the poverty line. Abortions account for just 3 percent of its overall activities.

What House Republicans seem to have forgotten is that by existing law, taxpayer funding cannot be used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger.

A ban on Federal spending for abortions has been in place since 1976. That is 35 years this ban has been in place.

Yet today House Republicans continue to try to strip Planned Parenthood of its Federal funding and continue to use this issue as a bargaining chip in a debate over the budget.

But the vote the Senate will have to take is clearly not about the budget, it is a war on women's health. This effort would essentially turn back the clock on women's health.

I said this last week, and I will say it again. This is simply an opportunity for the right wing in the House to really sock it to American women.

Let's talk about the facts.

Over 90 percent of care provided by Planned Parenthood is preventive. Planned Parenthood provides care to almost 3 million patients nationwide every year, many of whom have no other place to go.

Only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's total services are abortion services. And that 3 percent is not made up of Federal funds.

Every year, Planned Parenthood provides affordable contraception for nearly 2.5 million patients, nearly 1 million cervical cancer screens, 830,000 breast exams, and 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including half a million HIV tests.

These critical preventive services include annual exams, flu vaccines, smoking cessation, and well baby care.

Planned Parenthood helped to prevent 612,000 unintended pregnancies in 2009 alone. Every dollar invested in helping women avoid unintended pregnancies saves $4 in public funds.

And House Republicans want to eliminate Federal funding for this program?

These cuts are biased, politically motivated, and hurts women-- particularly low-income women.

Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood's clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.

In California alone, Planned Parenthood serves over 750,000 patients, over 680,000 of them through federal funds.

This program is necessary, effective, and oftentimes a last resort.

Let me share a story from one woman from my home State of California.

Mary couldn't afford annual visits to her regular OB/GYN office during college. So a friend suggested she visit Planned Parenthood for a free exam.

Mary said, ``After some hesitation I went. Thank god that I did. During my visit they found that I had the first signs of cervical cancer. I was 19 and terrified.

``The staff at Planned Parenthood was so supportive and understanding. One doctor in particular was amazing, I wish I could find her and thank her personally. She went out of her way to call and check up on me once a week until I had recovered completely from the procedure that got rid of the cancerous cells.''

Six years later, Mary is still healthy and still so grateful for the excellent and compassionate care she received at Planned Parenthood.

There are thousands of other stories like Mary's. I have heard from these young women who went to Planned Parenthood for STD screening and birth control, when they had no other place to go.

I have heard from women pleading with me to preserve Federal funding to Planned Parenthood; telling me that the cancer screenings they received saved their lives.

The House Republicans also want to defund the Affordable Care Act, and block critical consumer protections in the law.

This too targets women. House Republicans want to go back to the days where women could be denied insurance coverage for the ``preexisting condition'' of being pregnant.

They want to reinstate gender rating, where insurance companies charge women higher premiums simply because of gender.

House Republicans want to remove maternity care as an essential health benefit. Currently only 12 percent of health plans in the individual market offer any maternity coverage.

So you see, defunding Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act is not about reducing the deficit or balancing the budget. It is about harming women.

We need to look carefully at our spending and we need to make cuts, but not at the expense of the women in our country.

It is a shame that the budget debate has turned into an ideological war.

It is a shame that funding for health care and family planning is considered ``government waste'' by some Republicans.

When in reality, it is an ideological assault on women's health. I do not support any cuts that harm women and children.

I urge my colleagues return to the issue at hand so we can seriously discuss the Federal deficit, absent an ideological agenda.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are considering the nomination of Judge John Kronstadt to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California here today.

I had the privilege of recommending Judge Kronstadt's nomination to President Obama.

Since 2002, he has served as a judge on the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.

Judge Kronstadt first came to my attention through the Judicial Advisory Committee that I have set up in California. This is a bipartisan committee that reviews judicial candidates for me based on their legal acumen, reputation for skill and professionalism, breadth of personal experience, temperament, and overall commitment to excellence in the field of law.

Judge Kronstadt stood out from among the candidates for the vacancy on this court because he has all of these qualities in spades.

He has an outstanding academic record, with a bachelor of arts degree from Cornell University and a law degree from Yale Law School.

He started his legal career on the very court to which he is now nominated, serving as a law clerk to Judge William Gray of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Judge Kronstadt also brings a distinguished background in private practice. Prior to becoming a judge, he spent roughly two dozen years as a litigator trying complex civil cases before Federal courts, State courts, and administrative agencies.

He started as an associate and then became a partner at the law firm of Arnold & Porter--first in Washington, DC, and then in Los Angeles. Between years with that firm, he also spent 15 years managing his own firm with three colleagues. That was the firm of Blanc, Williams, Johnston, & Kronstadt.

On the Los Angeles County Superior Court, his docket consists primarily of civil cases, ranging from employment litigation to contract disputes to intellectual property and other commercial matters. He has overseen some 250 trials, as well as countless pretrial proceedings.

He has amassed a stellar in his almost 9 years on the court: only one of his decisions has ever been reversed. Within the Los Angeles area, Judge Kronstadt is regarded as one of the finest judges on the bench. Fellow judges, litigants, and local lawyers describe him as ``incredibly smart,'' ``very fair,'' ``even-tempered,'' and a ``hard worker'' who ``cares an incredible amount about the jury system.''

He has been a leader on the bench, serving on the court's executive committee, and chairing its Community Outreach Committee, among other positions.

Beyond his educational and professional qualifications, Judge Kronstadt has also shown an impressive dedication to education and the teaching of students throughout his career.

Since 2002, he has spent roughly 1,500 hours as a volunteer with the Constitutional Rights Foundation, including serving as the foundation's president.

This is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization in Los Angeles that seeks to ``educate young people to become active and responsible participants in our society'' and to teach them about ``the importance of civic participation in a democratic society.''

Judge Kronstadt developed a program for the Foundation known as ``Courtroom to Classroom.'' This program facilitates visits by judges to eighth and eleventh grade public school classrooms throughout the Los Angeles area.

Judges who volunteer provide copies of the Constitution to the students and organize mock trial activities to allow them to experience constitutional law and the courtroom at a young age.

And while in private practice, he developed a training program for the Los Angeles County Bar Association that reached over 1,000 new attorneys.

I am very pleased to support Judge Kronstadt's nomination. He has shown a firm commitment to the rule of law, and a dedication to public service in a variety of ways.

I believe he is eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported his nomination last month, and he is much-needed on the central district bench--that court has been designated as a judicial emergency district by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. I thank the leader for bringing his nomination to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl.

This bill requires that Indian tribes demonstrate both an aboriginal and a modern connection to the land before it can be used for gaming.

The bill responds to growing concerns and frustrations about the number of ``off-reservation'' casinos proposals in California and across the nation.

As of May 2010, the U.S. Department of Interior was considering 35 of these proposals. Eleven of them are in my home State.

Casinos strain local governments, increase violent crime, and increase bankruptcies. Gambling regulations are poorly enforced, largely because deficit-plagued state governments have cut enforcement staff down to the bone. Even when enforcement officials are present, highly protective ``State Compacts,'' protect tribal casinos from true scrutiny and legitimate oversight.

The fact is that some tribes have abused their unique right to operate casinos by taking land into trust miles away from their historical lands and miles away from where any tribal member resides. This is done to produce the most profitable casino, often with little regard to what is most beneficial to tribal members.

This unbridled reservation shopping is occurring with little to no input from local governments or neighboring tribes.

The result: 58 casinos in California; 11 more in the approval process; and a very real potential for an additional 50 casinos in the coming years.

That is why I am introducing the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act. This legislation addresses the problems that arise from off-reservation casinos by requiring that tribes meet two simple conditions if they wish to game on lands acquired after the passage of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

First the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct modern connection to the land.''

Second, the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct aboriginal connection to the land.''

Simply put, tribes must demonstrate that both they and their ancestors have a connection to the land in question.

In 2000, California voters thought they settled the question of casino gaming when they passed Proposition 1A. This proposition authorized the governor to negotiate gambling compacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for ``federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands.''

The words ``on Indian lands'' were key to Proposition 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands, and voters endorsed this bargain with 65 percent of the vote.

But fast-forward 10 years and this agreement is being put to the test. In the last decade, the Department of the Interior has received dozens of gaming applications; some for casinos nowhere near a tribe's historic lands. Many of these requests have been granted and California has become ground zero for tribal casinos. We have 58 Las Vegas style casinos all across the State--from within miles of the Mexican border, to within miles of the Oregon border.

The problem is only going to get worse. There are 67 tribes currently seeking Federal recognition in California who will have the ability to take ``initial lands'' into trust for gaming. This ``initial lands'' exemption gives landless tribes carte blanche when it comes to picking a spot for their casino--urban areas, environmentally sensitive areas, you name it! That is a real concern to me and my constituents.

As of May 2010, there were 11 applications for off-reservation or restored lands casinos in California pending at the Department of the Interior. These include projects near San Francisco, Barstow, and Sacramento.

It also includes applications for casinos in San Diego and Riverside Counties, where there are already 21 existing casinos.

By seeking to open casinos in urban areas close to the greatest number of potential gamblers, instead of on historical lands, these tribes are ignoring the will of California voters and the intent of Congress when it passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Unfortunately, without a legislative fix such as the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act, Californians have no power to stop these tribes from opening unwanted casinos in their back yards.

But voters are still trying to make their voices heard, rejecting the idea of reservation shopping. At one location, in Richmond, CA, a city of nearly 100,000 in the middle of the Bay Area--a tribe proposed taking land into trust to open a 4,000-slot-machine casino. Proponents tout it as a major economic engine for a depressed area.

On November 2, Richmond voters made it clear how they feel: by a margin of 58 to 42 percent, voters overwhelmingly rejected the advisory Measure U on the Richmond casino and they elected two new city council members who strongly oppose the casino. It was an unambiguous rejection of this off-reservation gaming proposal.

Some people have tried to tell me that this is just a California problem, and that we just need a California-solution. I am afraid this is not the case.

The Department of the Interior is considering gaming applications for tribes in Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, Nevada, and Massachusetts just to name a few. I urge my colleagues to ask your constituents and your community leaders if they have were consulted about these proposals. Did they have any input? Were the needs of the cities, counties, and neighboring tribes considered?

As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to support large casinos can be strong. But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public services and increased traffic congestion.

Some Indian gaming proponents, often backed by rich out-of-state investors and gambling syndicates, would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming establishments are a sign of growth and economic development.

In 2006 the California Research Bureau compiled research on the effects of casinos on communities, and they released a report entitled Gambling in the Golden State. The results were staggering.

The development of new casinos is associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime and a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates.

New casinos are also associated with an increase in law enforcement expenditures of $15.34 per person.

California already spends an estimated $1 billion to deal with problem-gamblers and pathological-gamblers, 75 percent of which identify Indian casinos as their primary gambling preference.

This report confirmed what many local elected officials and community activists already knew: casinos may create a few jobs, but they come with a tremendous cost.

One reason for the high costs casinos is the woefully inadequate oversight at Indian gambling facilities.

In California, gaming oversight officials are responsible for over twice as much economic activity per inspector compared to their counterparts in states with legalized commercial gambling. Using the most recent data available from 2006:

California employed 180 gambling oversight officials to regulate $5.2 billion dollars in economic activity.

This means the State only employed 1 official for every $28.9 million dollars of economic activity in the gambling industry.

By comparison, the 11 States that had legalized commercial gambling averaged 1 oversight official per $12.1 million dollars of activity.

Furthermore, closed-door gaming compacts limit what little power these investigators actually have. They cannot conduct unannounced visits, they have little discretion on what penalties to enact, and they cannot enforce their punishments when they are handed down. Quite simply, it is a broken system.

I know that some may try to mischaracterize my legislation and say that I am trying to limit the sovereignty of Native American tribes or destroy their ability to undertake much needed economic development.

But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the truth.

The fact of the matter is that most casinos are appropriately placed--on historical tribal lands--and there is no need to argue about the legitimacy of these establishments.

My legislation only deals with those proposals that are truly beyond the scope of Congressional intent when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl.

This bill requires that Indian tribes demonstrate both an aboriginal and a modern connection to the land before it can be used for gaming.

The bill responds to growing concerns and frustrations about the number of ``off-reservation'' casinos proposals in California and across the nation.

As of May 2010, the U.S. Department of Interior was considering 35 of these proposals. Eleven of them are in my home State.

Casinos strain local governments, increase violent crime, and increase bankruptcies. Gambling regulations are poorly enforced, largely because deficit-plagued state governments have cut enforcement staff down to the bone. Even when enforcement officials are present, highly protective ``State Compacts,'' protect tribal casinos from true scrutiny and legitimate oversight.

The fact is that some tribes have abused their unique right to operate casinos by taking land into trust miles away from their historical lands and miles away from where any tribal member resides. This is done to produce the most profitable casino, often with little regard to what is most beneficial to tribal members.

This unbridled reservation shopping is occurring with little to no input from local governments or neighboring tribes.

The result: 58 casinos in California; 11 more in the approval process; and a very real potential for an additional 50 casinos in the coming years.

That is why I am introducing the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act. This legislation addresses the problems that arise from off-reservation casinos by requiring that tribes meet two simple conditions if they wish to game on lands acquired after the passage of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

First the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct modern connection to the land.''

Second, the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct aboriginal connection to the land.''

Simply put, tribes must demonstrate that both they and their ancestors have a connection to the land in question.

In 2000, California voters thought they settled the question of casino gaming when they passed Proposition 1A. This proposition authorized the governor to negotiate gambling compacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for ``federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands.''

The words ``on Indian lands'' were key to Proposition 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands, and voters endorsed this bargain with 65 percent of the vote.

But fast-forward 10 years and this agreement is being put to the test. In the last decade, the Department of the Interior has received dozens of gaming applications; some for casinos nowhere near a tribe's historic lands. Many of these requests have been granted and California has become ground zero for tribal casinos. We have 58 Las Vegas style casinos all across the State--from within miles of the Mexican border, to within miles of the Oregon border.

The problem is only going to get worse. There are 67 tribes currently seeking Federal recognition in California who will have the ability to take ``initial lands'' into trust for gaming. This ``initial lands'' exemption gives landless tribes carte blanche when it comes to picking a spot for their casino--urban areas, environmentally sensitive areas, you name it! That is a real concern to me and my constituents.

As of May 2010, there were 11 applications for off-reservation or restored lands casinos in California pending at the Department of the Interior. These include projects near San Francisco, Barstow, and Sacramento.

It also includes applications for casinos in San Diego and Riverside Counties, where there are already 21 existing casinos.

By seeking to open casinos in urban areas close to the greatest number of potential gamblers, instead of on historical lands, these tribes are ignoring the will of California voters and the intent of Congress when it passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Unfortunately, without a legislative fix such as the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act, Californians have no power to stop these tribes from opening unwanted casinos in their back yards.

But voters are still trying to make their voices heard, rejecting the idea of reservation shopping. At one location, in Richmond, CA, a city of nearly 100,000 in the middle of the Bay Area--a tribe proposed taking land into trust to open a 4,000-slot-machine casino. Proponents tout it as a major economic engine for a depressed area.

On November 2, Richmond voters made it clear how they feel: by a margin of 58 to 42 percent, voters overwhelmingly rejected the advisory Measure U on the Richmond casino and they elected two new city council members who strongly oppose the casino. It was an unambiguous rejection of this off-reservation gaming proposal.

Some people have tried to tell me that this is just a California problem, and that we just need a California-solution. I am afraid this is not the case.

The Department of the Interior is considering gaming applications for tribes in Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, Nevada, and Massachusetts just to name a few. I urge my colleagues to ask your constituents and your community leaders if they have were consulted about these proposals. Did they have any input? Were the needs of the cities, counties, and neighboring tribes considered?

As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to support large casinos can be strong. But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public services and increased traffic congestion.

Some Indian gaming proponents, often backed by rich out-of-state investors and gambling syndicates, would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming establishments are a sign of growth and economic development.

In 2006 the California Research Bureau compiled research on the effects of casinos on communities, and they released a report entitled Gambling in the Golden State. The results were staggering.

The development of new casinos is associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime and a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates.

New casinos are also associated with an increase in law enforcement expenditures of $15.34 per person.

California already spends an estimated $1 billion to deal with problem-gamblers and pathological-gamblers, 75 percent of which identify Indian casinos as their primary gambling preference.

This report confirmed what many local elected officials and community activists already knew: casinos may create a few jobs, but they come with a tremendous cost.

One reason for the high costs casinos is the woefully inadequate oversight at Indian gambling facilities.

In California, gaming oversight officials are responsible for over twice as much economic activity per inspector compared to their counterparts in states with legalized commercial gambling. Using the most recent data available from 2006:

California employed 180 gambling oversight officials to regulate $5.2 billion dollars in economic activity.

This means the State only employed 1 official for every $28.9 million dollars of economic activity in the gambling industry.

By comparison, the 11 States that had legalized commercial gambling averaged 1 oversight official per $12.1 million dollars of activity.

Furthermore, closed-door gaming compacts limit what little power these investigators actually have. They cannot conduct unannounced visits, they have little discretion on what penalties to enact, and they cannot enforce their punishments when they are handed down. Quite simply, it is a broken system.

I know that some may try to mischaracterize my legislation and say that I am trying to limit the sovereignty of Native American tribes or destroy their ability to undertake much needed economic development.

But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the truth.

The fact of the matter is that most casinos are appropriately placed--on historical tribal lands--and there is no need to argue about the legitimacy of these establishments.

My legislation only deals with those proposals that are truly beyond the scope of Congressional intent when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988.

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

Mr. President, I rise to call for a new effort to combat an often deadly form of cancer--by re-introducing the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act. I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry on this very important bill.

This bill will renew and improve Federal government's efforts to combat lung cancer. It will: set a goal to reduce lung cancer mortality by 50 percent by 2020; establish a Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program, with comprehensive interagency coordination, to develop and implement a plan to meet this goal; improve disparity programs to ensure that the burdens of lung cancer on minority populations are addressed; create a computed tomography screening demonstration project based on recent science; and establish a Lung Cancer Advisory Board, which will provide an annual report to Congress on the progress of the Mortality Reduction Program.

We have made great strides against many types of cancer in the last several decades. However, these gains are uneven.

When the National Cancer Act was passed in 1971, lung cancer had a 5- year survival rate of only 12 percent. After decades of research efforts and scientific advances, this survival rate remains only 15 percent.

In contrast, the 5 year survival rates of breast, prostate, and colon cancer have risen to 89, 99 and 65 percent respectively.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, accounting for 28 percent of all cancer deaths.

Lung cancer causes more deaths annually than: colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer combined.

A National Cancer Institute study in 2009 indicated that the value of life lost to lung cancer will exceed $433 billion annually by 2020.

A four percent annual decline in mortality would reduce this amount by more than half.

A lung cancer diagnosis can be devastating. The average life expectancy following a lung cancer diagnosis is only 9 months.

This is because far too many patients are not diagnosed with lung cancer until it has progressed to the later stages. Lung cancer can be hard to diagnose, and symptoms may at first appear to be other illnesses, such as bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma.

As a result, only 16 percent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed when their cancer is still localized, and is the most treatable.

When I introduced this legislation in 2009, lung cancer lacked early detection technology, to find the cancer when it was most treatable. Now, however, preliminary results show a screening method with a demonstrated reduction in mortality for lung cancer.

In 2010, the National Cancer Institute released initial results from the National Lung Screening Trial, a large-scale study of screening methods to detect lung cancers at earlier stages.

The National Lung Screening Trial found a 20 percent reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with the computed tomography screening versus a traditional X-ray.

This is the first time that researchers have seen evidence of a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a screening test.

This is why this legislation also includes the creation of a computed tomography screening demonstration project, to assess public health needs of screening for lung cancer, and develop the most effective, safe, equitable, and efficient process to maximize the benefit of screening.

Efforts to fight lung cancer lag behind other cancers, in part, due to stigma from smoking. Make no mistake, tobacco use causes the majority of lung cancer cases.

Tobacco cessation is a critical component of reducing lung cancer mortality. Less smoking means less lung cancer. Period.

But tobacco use does not fully explain lung cancer. Approximately 20 percent of lung cancer patients never smoked.

Two-thirds of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer who have never smoked are women.

60 percent of lung cancer patients are former smokers who quit, often decades ago.

These patients may have been exposed to second hand smoke, or they may have been exposed to radon, asbestos, chromium, or other chemicals. There could be other causes and associations that have not yet been discovered, genetic predispositions or other environmental exposures.

The President's National Cancer Advisory Board Report of 2010 identified radon as the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking and listed 15 other environmental contaminants strongly associated with lung cancer.

I believe that we have the expertise and technology to make serious progress against this deadly cancer, and to reach the goal of halving lung cancer mortality by 2020.

We need this legislation to ensure that our government's resources are focused on this mission in the most efficient way possible.

Agency efforts must be coordinated, and all sectors of the federal government that may have some ideas to lend should be participating. That is what the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program will accomplish.

In this bill the Secretary of Health and Human Services is tasked to work

in consultation with Secretaries and Directors from the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities.

This means that each agency with an expertise on lungs, imaging, and cancer will be included in this long overdue process.

We can do better for Americans diagnosed with lung cancer. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to call for a new effort to combat an often deadly form of cancer--by re-introducing the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act. I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry on this very important bill.

This bill will renew and improve Federal government's efforts to combat lung cancer. It will: set a goal to reduce lung cancer mortality by 50 percent by 2020; establish a Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program, with comprehensive interagency coordination, to develop and implement a plan to meet this goal; improve disparity programs to ensure that the burdens of lung cancer on minority populations are addressed; create a computed tomography screening demonstration project based on recent science; and establish a Lung Cancer Advisory Board, which will provide an annual report to Congress on the progress of the Mortality Reduction Program.

We have made great strides against many types of cancer in the last several decades. However, these gains are uneven.

When the National Cancer Act was passed in 1971, lung cancer had a 5- year survival rate of only 12 percent. After decades of research efforts and scientific advances, this survival rate remains only 15 percent.

In contrast, the 5 year survival rates of breast, prostate, and colon cancer have risen to 89, 99 and 65 percent respectively.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, accounting for 28 percent of all cancer deaths.

Lung cancer causes more deaths annually than: colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer combined.

A National Cancer Institute study in 2009 indicated that the value of life lost to lung cancer will exceed $433 billion annually by 2020.

A four percent annual decline in mortality would reduce this amount by more than half.

A lung cancer diagnosis can be devastating. The average life expectancy following a lung cancer diagnosis is only 9 months.

This is because far too many patients are not diagnosed with lung cancer until it has progressed to the later stages. Lung cancer can be hard to diagnose, and symptoms may at first appear to be other illnesses, such as bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma.

As a result, only 16 percent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed when their cancer is still localized, and is the most treatable.

When I introduced this legislation in 2009, lung cancer lacked early detection technology, to find the cancer when it was most treatable. Now, however, preliminary results show a screening method with a demonstrated reduction in mortality for lung cancer.

In 2010, the National Cancer Institute released initial results from the National Lung Screening Trial, a large-scale study of screening methods to detect lung cancers at earlier stages.

The National Lung Screening Trial found a 20 percent reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with the computed tomography screening versus a traditional X-ray.

This is the first time that researchers have seen evidence of a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a screening test.

This is why this legislation also includes the creation of a computed tomography screening demonstration project, to assess public health needs of screening for lung cancer, and develop the most effective, safe, equitable, and efficient process to maximize the benefit of screening.

Efforts to fight lung cancer lag behind other cancers, in part, due to stigma from smoking. Make no mistake, tobacco use causes the majority of lung cancer cases.

Tobacco cessation is a critical component of reducing lung cancer mortality. Less smoking means less lung cancer. Period.

But tobacco use does not fully explain lung cancer. Approximately 20 percent of lung cancer patients never smoked.

Two-thirds of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer who have never smoked are women.

60 percent of lung cancer patients are former smokers who quit, often decades ago.

These patients may have been exposed to second hand smoke, or they may have been exposed to radon, asbestos, chromium, or other chemicals. There could be other causes and associations that have not yet been discovered, genetic predispositions or other environmental exposures.

The President's National Cancer Advisory Board Report of 2010 identified radon as the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking and listed 15 other environmental contaminants strongly associated with lung cancer.

I believe that we have the expertise and technology to make serious progress against this deadly cancer, and to reach the goal of halving lung cancer mortality by 2020.

We need this legislation to ensure that our government's resources are focused on this mission in the most efficient way possible.

Agency efforts must be coordinated, and all sectors of the federal government that may have some ideas to lend should be participating. That is what the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Program will accomplish.

In this bill the Secretary of Health and Human Services is tasked to work

in consultation with Secretaries and Directors from the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities.

This means that each agency with an expertise on lungs, imaging, and cancer will be included in this long overdue process.

We can do better for Americans diagnosed with lung cancer. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business.

This afternoon, quite possibly, or another time, quite possibly, we will have very significant amendments that will strip EPA of its mandate to protect the American public from pollution which threatens our public health and welfare by inducing climate change.

Specifically, I strongly oppose the McConnell amendment, which would be a complete stop-work order for the EPA to reduce carbon pollution.

I also oppose Senator Stabenow's amendment number 265, which would strip California of its right to impose tailpipe emission standards beyond Federal standards. California has had the right to go beyond the Federal standards to protect its citizens from dangerous pollution since 1970. That is 40 years.

I oppose Senator Rockefeller's proposal to prevent EPA from studying, developing, improving, or enforcing Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulations for at least 2 years. I oppose these amendments because they would allow polluters to keep polluting, they would endanger public health and welfare, and they would increase our dependence on oil. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

As the lead author of the bipartisan Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, with Senator Snowe and Senator Ted Stevens, which passed this body by voice vote, I would like to explain why the McConnell amendment would undermine fuel economy and lead to less efficient vehicles in the United States.

The amendment would legislatively prevent EPA from acting to reduce vehicle emissions that threaten our public health after 2016, and it would also strip California of its right to protect its own citizens from dangerous pollution. The prohibition would undermine the bill we sought to pass and did pass, and it was signed by President Bush; that is, 10 miles of increased fuel efficiency in 10 years. It directed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation to work cooperatively to increase fuel economy and decrease pollution. This was a big win.

I began in 1993 with Senators Slade Gorton and Dick Bryan--no longer in the Senate; one from Washington and one from Nevada--and we sat right over there and tried to draft some language for a sense of the Senate--something as benign as a sense of the Senate--to begin to work on automobile fuel efficiency, and we could not get it passed.

Then Senator Snowe and I got together on an SUV loophole closure bill. That went on for several years, and we could not get that passed.

Then there was the ten-in-ten fuel efficiency bill, and, voila, we were able to get it passed. It is going well. Cars are more fuel efficient, and the corporate average fuel-efficiency standards are being established in a much more constructive way based on science. As a result of the law, the administration has put forward the most aggressive increases in vehicle efficiency since the 1970s, increasing fleetwide fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. The final rules will save about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 1 billion tons over the lives of the vehicles covered. It seems to me that is very good public policy. As a result, American consumers benefit. They will have more efficient vehicles, and they will pay less for gas. And those savings are considerable.

This single program to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions under the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act and the Clean Air Act results in an aggressive policy to advance the goals of both laws. The regulations also demonstrate that strong Federal standards are the best means to ensure that California and other States are not legally obligated to enforce more aggressive standards to protect the health of their citizens--a right Californians have had since 1970.

Bottom line: These harmonized standards demonstrate the success of ten-in-ten fuel economy. Despite the tremendous success of this first round of joint fuel economy and tailpipe regulations, the McConnell amendment would prevent the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and California from pursuing cooperative and coordinated standards again. Similarly, the Stabenow amendment number 265 would prevent California from participating in this process. This would halt an ongoing cooperative process to set a single set of cost-effective standards for cars, trucks, and SUVs from 2017 to 2025 which will increase fuel economy, which will reduce pollution, and which will save Americans billions of dollars.

It is backward public policy. EPA and the Department of Transportation have already conducted the technical assessment which demonstrates the significant increases in fleetwide fuel economy--6 percent annually--which is both technically feasible and cost effective for consumers. They are working to complete a single set of standards in full cooperation with California. But the McConnell amendment and Senator Stabenow's amendment number 265 would stop this effort because the auto industry would prefer to sell gas guzzlers that continue our dependence on oil, and the amendments prevent waivers that have been a part of the Clean Air Act for decades, preventing leading States such as California from doing anything beyond the national standard. So it both handcuffs and cripples corporate average fuel efficiency. It stymies it. It stops it.

California has 38 million people. We are our own pace setter. We want to work with the rest of the States to have a unified standard so that we are not our own economy, so to speak, with fuel efficiency. That is the right thing to do, and it is happening now. This would put an end to it.

The amendments prevent waivers, as I said, that have been part of this act for decades. That means that never again, no matter what the situation is, can there be a waiver for greenhouse gas emissions. It would turn back the clock on historic efforts to improve the efficiency of the Nation's automobiles and slow any future effort to reduce pollution and improve fuel economy.

Bottom line: A vote for this amendment is a vote to increase our susceptibility to oil market price spikes, let there be no doubt, a vote to increase how much Americans will spend at the pump for decades to come--it will be much more--and a vote to increase pollution that threatens our public health.

Unfortunately, these amendments not only stop the vehicle rules, the McConnell amendment strips EPA of its authority to enforce the Clean Air Act with regard to pollutants that EPA scientists have conclusively determined endanger public health, an endangerment finding that the Supreme Court ordered EPA to make in the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA decision. The Stabenow and Rockefeller amendments similarly delay this action. Polluters would be able to continue to pollute, and the agency charged with protecting us from this pollution would be powerless to stop it or even limit it.

Blocking the Clean Air Act and its lifesaving protections makes no sense. This act has had a long and successful track record of reducing pollution and protecting the health of our children and our families. Since its passage in 1970, the act has sharply reduced pollution from automobiles, industrial smokestacks, utility plants, and major sources of toxic chemicals and particulate matter. In its first 20 years, the act made real strides in reducing pollution, and that provided enormous benefits for public health. In 1990 alone, the act prevented 205,000 premature deaths, 674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 22,000 cases of heart disease, 850,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million child respiratory illnesses.

The Clean Air Act continues to provide benefits for our children and our families. Emissions of six common pollutants have dropped 40 percent. In 2010, 1.7 million asthma attacks were prevented and 130,000 heart attacks and 86,000 emergency room visits. That is in 1 year alone, this past year. And it provides economic benefit to the United States.

Thoroughly peer-reviewed studies have found that for every one dollar spent on clean air protections, we get $30 of benefits in return. In 2020 alone, the annual benefit of the Clean Air Act's rules is estimated to be nearly $2 trillion.

Advocates for these amendments argue the United States cannot afford environmental protection. They continue to say we must poison our air and water in order to develop our country. I don't believe that. Pollution is a burden on our economy. It is not a force for good. Cost- effective reduction makes our Nation stronger, not weaker. We harm our economy when we ignore pollution. Time and time again, the people of California have demonstrated that we are unwilling to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy, because we choose both. And so should the United States.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject these misguided amendments,

whether they come up this afternoon at 4 o'clock or another time, that would let polluters off the hook, that would increase our dependence on oil, that would decrease the mileage efficiency of automobiles and light trucks and would harm the environment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize and honor the

incredible life of Elizabeth Taylor, a true Hollywood movie star, a dedicated social activist, and a legendary figure in American history.

Elizabeth Taylor was born on February 27, 1932, in Hampstead, London, England, to Americans Francis Lenn Taylor and Sara Viola Warmbrodt. In a career that spanned 70 years, Elizabeth Taylor remarkably appeared in over 50 films. However, it was her philanthropy and dedication to her fellow humankind that have earned my deepest gratitude.

Many will remember Elizabeth Taylor for her film career, with overwhelming hits such as ``National Velvet,'' which catapulted her to stardom and solidified her as Hollywood's newest star. I personally recall this film as one of my childhood treasures, and it remains a classic to this day. Ms. Taylor was a pioneer for women, in film and in society. When she signed a $1 million contract for the film ``Cleopatra,'' it boldly declared her status to Hollywood and the world. She also expanded her body of work to include Broadway, where she debuted in the revival of Lillian Hellman's 1939 play ``The Little Foxes'' and returned in the revival of Noel Coward's 1930 comedy ``Private Lives.''

Though Elizabeth Taylor earned her household name through her accomplishments in the film industry, it was her charitable work to combat AIDS that was truly outstanding. Never one to shy away from opposition or controversy, Ms. Taylor wholeheartedly fundraised, supported, and raised awareness for AIDS. Her ability to mobilize a new audience was remarkable. In addition to fundraising and contributing millions of dollars to addressing AIDS, Ms. Taylor was a principal founder in the American Foundation for AIDS Research, amfAR, and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation.

Elizabeth Taylor received many accolades throughout her career, including her appointment as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for her illustrious film career and humanitarian work. Ms. Taylor received two Academy Awards for best actress for her performances in ``Butterfield 8'' and ``Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.'' Later, she was inducted into the California Hall of Fame at the California Museum for History, Women, and the Arts, by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. While these honors are notable, it was Ms. Taylor's intangible qualities of perseverance, altruism, and grace that were even more remarkable.

Beyond her film career and role as an activist, Elizabeth Taylor was an individual with an entrepreneurial spirit. She authored a self-help book, designed jewelry for The Elizabeth Collection by Piranesi, and created the popular perfumes ``Passion,'' ``White Diamonds,'' and ``Black Pearls.'' As a reflection of herself, Ms. Taylor's ventures always evoked a sense of class, eternal elegance, and beauty.

Please join me in expressing the sympathies of this body to Elizabeth Taylor's family, including her children, Michael Howard and Christopher Edward Wilding, Elizabeth ``Liza'' Todd, and Maria Burton, 10 grandchildren, and 4 great-grandchildren. I have no doubt she will be so dearly missed by the many friends, family, and countless individuals whose lives she touched. On this day, we celebrate her, her life, her legacy, and her extraordinary contributions to our Nation and the world as a whole.

Elizabeth Taylor will be remembered as a dazzling actress, a friend, a noble philanthropist, and as Hollywood's ultimate leading lady.

Madam President, I rise today to reflect on the life and legacy of Geraldine Ferraro who lost her heroic battle with cancer on Saturday.

Geraldine Ferraro was first elected to public office in 1978 to represent Queens in the U.S. House of Representatives.

As a member of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, she pushed to improve mass transit around La Guardia Airport.

Later, she would cosponsor the Economic Equity Act, which was intended to accomplish many of the aims of the never-ratified equal rights amendment.

In 1984, former Vice President and a distinguished Member of this body, Walter Mondale, chose Gerry to join him as his Vice Presidential running mate, the first woman to be placed on a national ticket.

I was privileged to serve as the mayor of San Francisco in 1984 where the Democratic Party held its convention that election year.

Twenty-seven years later, as I look back on that time, I realize what an important and historical moment her selection was to American politics.

I recall the emotion and enthusiasm of people--men and women--at the Moscone Center in San Francisco when Gerry took the podium.

Sixty-four years after women won the right to vote, Geraldine Ferraro represented a new beginning for our politics. It was an amazing feeling.

While the election didn't go the Democrats' way that year, Gerry's selection was a victory for a generation

of young women who saw that anything is possible and no position in government has a ``men only'' sign on the door.

As the first Vice Presidential nominee of a major party, she not only put a crack in the glass ceiling that year, she demonstrated the dedication and the competence of women in the political arena.

I didn't know her well, but I do know her experiences well.

I know how tough it was as a woman running for political office--only to find out everyone else was discussing the style of your outfit.

I know how tough it was to be one of the first elected officials to speak using phrases like, ``As a mother,'' or ``If I were pregnant . . .''

I know how tough it was as a woman debating men in political debates and then when it was over, debating a dozen reporters.

I know how tough it was as a woman who fought and won for change to live to see other women make a dozen other cracks in that glass ceiling.

But the same ideals Geraldine Ferraro fought for during her public life are the same ideals we fight for today.

It would be another 24 years after that night in San Francisco before another woman from a major party was nominated for Vice President.

And even though Hillary Rodham Clinton came close to being nominated in 2008 as the Democratic Presidential candidate, a woman has yet to occupy the Oval Office.

There are only 16 other women besides myself serving in the U.S. Senate. In the 435 Member House, just 71 are women. And just six States have women Governors.

Despite these statistics today, Geraldine Ferraro's career and example gave women across the country hope and heart.

At the time when Gerry Ferraro and I were in office, people had reservations about women in office. So the press pushed you further and further--just to see how smart you were or how you would react.

When I was mayor, I had to do more homework than my counterparts; I had to be prepared for every possible question--more questions and detail than my counterparts.

There was a judgment that women were not effective. But that judgment of effectiveness has changed.

It took some time, but women in office have shown we are capable of offering legislation, working to pass it, and being just as effective as our male counterparts.

Geraldine Ferraro gave it her all. She gave women everywhere an example of determination. She continued that drive when she supported other women in national office.

And she will continue to give us all hope and heart for decades to come in her place in history.

Madam President, I rise today to express my continuing concern about the current situation in Tibet.

Before I do so, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a recent statement made by His Holiness the Dalai Lama on his political future.

In his March 10 statement marking the 52nd anniversary of the Tibetan uprising, His Holiness announced his intention to propose amendments to the Charter for Tibetans in Exile, handing over his formal authority to an elected leader.

Let me read a portion of his message to the Fourteenth Assembly of the Tibetan People's Deputies:

The essence of a democratic system is, in short, the

assumption of political responsibility by elected leaders for

the popular good. In order for our process of democratization

to be complete, the time has come for me to devolve my formal

authority to such an elected leadership.

I applaud His Holiness for this decision and I stand ready to do my part to help the Tibetan community in exile transition to a new political structure.

I take great comfort in the knowledge that His Holiness will continue his role as spiritual leader to the Tibetan people and will work tirelessly to preserve the Tibetan culture both inside and outside of Tibet.

I also support His Holiness' call for fact-finding delegations to Tibet, including representatives of international parliamentarians, to see for themselves the current situation on the ground.

As His Holiness pointed out, similar delegations visited Tibet in the late 1970s and early 1980s and I strongly encourage China to allow them again.

I believe such delegations could increase awareness about the challenges facing Tibetans and Tibetan culture and enhance dialogue and cooperation with China on finding mutually beneficial solutions.

Indeed, as a friend of His Holiness and as a friend of all Tibetan people, I remain deeply concerned about the situation in Tibet.

In 2008, a wave of violence swept across Tibet which was met with violence by the Chinese government.

Reports out of Tibet continue to paint a picture of the suppression the Tibetan culture and people are confronted with.

And despite nine rounds of talks between the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China and envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a comprehensive solution to the Tibetan issue remains out of reach.

As a friend of China and the Dalai Lama, I am saddened to see the situation in Tibet further deteriorate.

The Dalai Lama has been trying to engage the Chinese leadership for more than 50 years.

In the 1990s, I carried three letters to President Jiang Zemin from the Dalai Lama requesting a face-to-face meeting.

In my view, the Dalai Lama's concerns are driven by the fact that the Chinese Government continues to suppress the Tibetan way of life.

Yet he has made it clear that he does not support independence for Tibet, but rather meaningful cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people within the People's Republic of China.

This can only come about through meaningful dialogue and negotiation, not actions that would undermine Tibetan culture.

As such, I urge the administration to support fact-finding delegations to Tibet and work with our friends and allies in the international community to call on the Chinese Government to begin a substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama on national reconciliation, respect for the Tibetan culture, and meaningful autonomy for Tibet.

I have been blessed to call the Dalai Lama a friend for more than 30 years. I first met him during a trip to India and Nepal in the fall of 1978.

During that trip I invited His Holiness to visit San Francisco--where I was mayor at the time--and he accepted. In September 1979, I was delighted to welcome the Dalai Lama to San Francisco to receive his first public recognition in the United States.

During our many conversations, His Holiness often reiterates that, at its core, Buddhism espouses reaching out to help others, particularly the less fortunate. And it encourages us all to be more kind and compassionate.

His teachings truly cross all religions, cultures, and ethnic lines.

Over the decades, his principled beliefs have never wavered, yet his teachings have become more expansive. His message of peace and understanding has never been more relevant than it is today.

In the midst of war and bloodshed, the Dalai Lama has been a champion for peace and nonviolence. In his quiet but undeniably firm manner, he challenges all of us to look beyond conflict and harmful rhetoric to seek positive change by embracing dialogue, cooperation, and negotiated solutions.

In the face of hatred and intolerance, he has faith in love, compassion, and respect.

He reminds people from all corners of the globe to move beyond our ethnic, religious, and racial divisions and embrace our common humanity. He encourages us to believe in something bigger than ourselves and work together for a better future.

He sets a wonderful example for all of us, and I am proud to call him friend.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Dalai Lama in working toward a humanitarian solution to the problems plaguing Tibet and the Tibetan people.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This bill makes important changes that will increase availability and reduce cost of catastrophic insurance for homeowners in California and other earthquake-prone Sstates.

The tragedy and devastation of the recent 9.0 earthquake in Japan was a real wakeup call for many of us. You see, the people of Japan are keenly aware of the risks of earthquakes. Every year, thousands of people participate in earthquake drills, and their building codes are the most advanced in the world. Japanese seismologists have the most sophisticated technology and monitoring systems. But all of this did little to protect them from an earthquake of this magnitude.

The people of California and much of the West Coast face a similar risk. The United States Geological Survey predicts a 99.7 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake will strike in California in the next 30 years. The agency also predicts a 46 percent chance that a magnitude 7.5 percent or higher earthquake will strike California in the next 30 years.

The 2008 ShakeOut Scenario conducted by the US Geological Survey and FEMA modeled a 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andres Fault. Though that quake was only 1/10th the size of the recent event in Honshu, Japan, FEMA estimated that a 7.8 earthquake in Los Angeles would result in 2,000 deaths and an economic loss of $213.3 billion.

The simple fact is that we cannot prevent earthquakes, so we must be prepared in the event one does occur. That is the only way we will be able to respond and recover quickly.

That is why I am introducing the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This legislation allows non-profit state-run disaster insurance programs to receive federal guarantees if they need access to credit in the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster. Access to credit is critical in the immediate aftermath of disasters because the market will likely be disrupted and private institutions will be reluctant to lend the large sums necessary to facilitate a quick and meaningful recovery.

This Federal guarantee will be limited. The Secretary of Treasury must certify that recipients of each of the loan guarantee are able to repay debts within a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, my legislation ensures that the cost of the program is born by state programs, not the federal taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that my bill comes at no cost to the taxpayer.

But this legislation is about more than just access to credit--it will guarantee homeowners have access to affordable earthquake insurance coverage. This means homeowners will be able to quickly rebuild in the aftermath of an earthquake.

This legislation is necessary because most homeowner insurance policies do not cover earthquakes. In California, for instance, most homeowner insurance policies cover fire damage but not damage caused by earthquakes.

As a result, homeowners are often put in the position of either having to purchase expensive supplemental insurance or leaving their homes uninsured against these risks.

In order to help promote coverage for these risks, many states and the Federal Government have set up supplemental insurance programs that offer this coverage at affordable rates.

At the Federal level, the National Flood Insurance Program offers flood insurance to residents living in flood plains where private insurance is unavailable or too expensive.

Similar State-level programs exist in California, Florida, Texas, and other states to help residents protect their homes against catastrophic disasters. In my state, The California Earthquake Authority, CEA, was set up after the devastating 1994 Northridge earthquake to make earthquake insurance more affordable.

Unfortunately, many of these programs are not fully utilized. The California Earthquake Authority insures 70 percent of homeowners who purchase earthquake insurance in my state, but only 770,000 homeowners in California opted to buy such insurance. That means only 12 percent of Californians will be covered up if an earthquake hits.

The reason for such low use in that premiums and deductibles remain too high for the average consumer. A policy covering a $400,000 home and $60,000 of its contents costs an additional $1,105 per year, and that's on top of normal homeowners insurance. Even worse, with such high deductibles, policyholders must suffer near total collapse before they receive any payout. For most, this just isn't a good deal.

The reason for high-cost, high-deductible policies is that the CEA is forced to spend nearly $200 million each year to purchase reinsurance. This ensures that in the event of a major catastrophe, the CEA will still be able to pay out all of its claims. It is good policy for the CEA to incur this expense, and I commend their responsible business practices.

However, since 1994 the California Earthquake Authority has paid $2.5 billion in reinsurance premiums and only received back $250,000 in claims. It doesn't take a savvy businessman to see this isn't a good investment. But with minimal changes to federal law, the CEA and other state-run insurance programs can drastically reduce the

need for expensive reinsurance and substantially decrease the cost of their products.

The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act makes these changes, allowing programs like the California Earthquake Authority to access sufficient capital following a disaster.

Let me be clear: this is not a bailout or a handout for states. The California Earthquake Authority is independent from the state and financially stable.

This bill would increase insurance coverage in California and the rest of the country and help consumers deal with losses that will occur when the next major disaster strikes.

Over the first 5 years this legislation is in effect, nearly half a billion dollars in reinsurance costs would be saved and passed along to consumers.

The California Earthquake Authority could cut premiums by 30 percent or deductibles by 50 percent.

This could result in at least 700,000 new California homeowners purchasing earthquake insurance.

Following major disasters, the federal government spends millions of dollars, and often billions, cleaning up the mess.

Katrina cost FEMA $7.2 billion.

The Northridge earthquake cost FEMA $7 billion.

Hurricane Andrew cost FEMA $1.8 billion.

By enacting the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act and increasing the number of individuals with insurance, the cost of disaster recovery to the Federal Government could be substantially lower.

This is because FEMA cannot make payments to individuals who have insurance coverage. Therefore, every family that purchases earthquake insurance as a result of this bill, is one less family that FEMA may have to support when disaster strikes.

The bottom line is this: the next big earthquake is coming and we are not prepared for it. Families need to make sure they have earthquake preparedness plans, and homeowners need to evaluate the best ways to protect their homes. Structures need to be strengthened and all new buildings must be built to the highest standards. The Federal Government must also do its part, to help facilitate this preparedness.

The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will make great strides to help our country prepare for a major earthquake, and it does so without burdening the federal taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to quickly adopt this critical piece of legislation and help us better prepare for tragedy.

Mr. President, today Senator Kyl and I are introducing two bills that will assist with alleviating the costs of illegal immigration for State and local governments--the SCAAP Reauthorization Act and the SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011.

We are joined by Senators McCain, Schumer, Boxer, and Hutchison.

Immigration is a federal responsibility, as is securing the Nation's borders. When the Federal Government fails to prevent illegal immigration, as it has for some time now, it needs to take responsibility for the consequences of this failure.

However, the burden of incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes in our country has fallen largely to the States, and it weighs heavily on them, especially during this time of economic uncertainty. Last year, the State of California spent an estimated $1 billion to incarcerate criminal aliens.

Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, and was last reauthorized in 2006 as part of a Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. The SCAAP Reauthorization bill that I am introducing today will reauthorize the program for an additional four years, until fiscal year 2015.

The second bill that we are introducing today is necessary to fix a switch in interpretation by the Justice Department.

Prior to 2003, the Department of Justice interpreted the SCAAP statute to include reimbursement to States and localities for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of State and local offenses, and have been incarcerated for a minimum of 72 hours. However, in 2003, DOJ changed its interpretation, and began limiting reimbursement to the amount States and localities spend incarcerating convicted criminal aliens for at least 4 consecutive days.

Reimbursing States and localities only for the costs when a criminal alien is convicted and incarcerated for 4 consecutive days significantly undermines the goal of SCAAP that States and localities should not bear the burden of a broken Federal immigration system. The actual costs of this failed Federal system begin when these aliens are charged with a crime, transported, and incarcerated for any length of time.

This narrow interpretation by the Justice Department is even more devastating because SCAAP is consistently under-funded. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for SCAAP represents a 59 percent reduction below the fiscal year 2010 level and is far short of meeting the actual reimbursement costs of most States. As a result, SCAAP only reimburses States for a fraction of the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. In 2009, Los Angeles County alone spent $116.6 million to house undocumented felons and received only $15.4 million in reimbursement payments.

The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011 will fix this problem by making it clear that States can be reimbursed for the full costs of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors.

When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at the expense of local services and law enforcement. American communities simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration policies.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This bill makes important changes that will increase availability and reduce cost of catastrophic insurance for homeowners in California and other earthquake-prone Sstates.

The tragedy and devastation of the recent 9.0 earthquake in Japan was a real wakeup call for many of us. You see, the people of Japan are keenly aware of the risks of earthquakes. Every year, thousands of people participate in earthquake drills, and their building codes are the most advanced in the world. Japanese seismologists have the most sophisticated technology and monitoring systems. But all of this did little to protect them from an earthquake of this magnitude.

The people of California and much of the West Coast face a similar risk. The United States Geological Survey predicts a 99.7 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake will strike in California in the next 30 years. The agency also predicts a 46 percent chance that a magnitude 7.5 percent or higher earthquake will strike California in the next 30 years.

The 2008 ShakeOut Scenario conducted by the US Geological Survey and FEMA modeled a 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andres Fault. Though that quake was only 1/10th the size of the recent event in Honshu, Japan, FEMA estimated that a 7.8 earthquake in Los Angeles would result in 2,000 deaths and an economic loss of $213.3 billion.

The simple fact is that we cannot prevent earthquakes, so we must be prepared in the event one does occur. That is the only way we will be able to respond and recover quickly.

That is why I am introducing the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This legislation allows non-profit state-run disaster insurance programs to receive federal guarantees if they need access to credit in the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster. Access to credit is critical in the immediate aftermath of disasters because the market will likely be disrupted and private institutions will be reluctant to lend the large sums necessary to facilitate a quick and meaningful recovery.

This Federal guarantee will be limited. The Secretary of Treasury must certify that recipients of each of the loan guarantee are able to repay debts within a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, my legislation ensures that the cost of the program is born by state programs, not the federal taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that my bill comes at no cost to the taxpayer.

But this legislation is about more than just access to credit--it will guarantee homeowners have access to affordable earthquake insurance coverage. This means homeowners will be able to quickly rebuild in the aftermath of an earthquake.

This legislation is necessary because most homeowner insurance policies do not cover earthquakes. In California, for instance, most homeowner insurance policies cover fire damage but not damage caused by earthquakes.

As a result, homeowners are often put in the position of either having to purchase expensive supplemental insurance or leaving their homes uninsured against these risks.

In order to help promote coverage for these risks, many states and the Federal Government have set up supplemental insurance programs that offer this coverage at affordable rates.

At the Federal level, the National Flood Insurance Program offers flood insurance to residents living in flood plains where private insurance is unavailable or too expensive.

Similar State-level programs exist in California, Florida, Texas, and other states to help residents protect their homes against catastrophic disasters. In my state, The California Earthquake Authority, CEA, was set up after the devastating 1994 Northridge earthquake to make earthquake insurance more affordable.

Unfortunately, many of these programs are not fully utilized. The California Earthquake Authority insures 70 percent of homeowners who purchase earthquake insurance in my state, but only 770,000 homeowners in California opted to buy such insurance. That means only 12 percent of Californians will be covered up if an earthquake hits.

The reason for such low use in that premiums and deductibles remain too high for the average consumer. A policy covering a $400,000 home and $60,000 of its contents costs an additional $1,105 per year, and that's on top of normal homeowners insurance. Even worse, with such high deductibles, policyholders must suffer near total collapse before they receive any payout. For most, this just isn't a good deal.

The reason for high-cost, high-deductible policies is that the CEA is forced to spend nearly $200 million each year to purchase reinsurance. This ensures that in the event of a major catastrophe, the CEA will still be able to pay out all of its claims. It is good policy for the CEA to incur this expense, and I commend their responsible business practices.

However, since 1994 the California Earthquake Authority has paid $2.5 billion in reinsurance premiums and only received back $250,000 in claims. It doesn't take a savvy businessman to see this isn't a good investment. But with minimal changes to federal law, the CEA and other state-run insurance programs can drastically reduce the

need for expensive reinsurance and substantially decrease the cost of their products.

The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act makes these changes, allowing programs like the California Earthquake Authority to access sufficient capital following a disaster.

Let me be clear: this is not a bailout or a handout for states. The California Earthquake Authority is independent from the state and financially stable.

This bill would increase insurance coverage in California and the rest of the country and help consumers deal with losses that will occur when the next major disaster strikes.

Over the first 5 years this legislation is in effect, nearly half a billion dollars in reinsurance costs would be saved and passed along to consumers.

The California Earthquake Authority could cut premiums by 30 percent or deductibles by 50 percent.

This could result in at least 700,000 new California homeowners purchasing earthquake insurance.

Following major disasters, the federal government spends millions of dollars, and often billions, cleaning up the mess.

Katrina cost FEMA $7.2 billion.

The Northridge earthquake cost FEMA $7 billion.

Hurricane Andrew cost FEMA $1.8 billion.

By enacting the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act and increasing the number of individuals with insurance, the cost of disaster recovery to the Federal Government could be substantially lower.

This is because FEMA cannot make payments to individuals who have insurance coverage. Therefore, every family that purchases earthquake insurance as a result of this bill, is one less family that FEMA may have to support when disaster strikes.

The bottom line is this: the next big earthquake is coming and we are not prepared for it. Families need to make sure they have earthquake preparedness plans, and homeowners need to evaluate the best ways to protect their homes. Structures need to be strengthened and all new buildings must be built to the highest standards. The Federal Government must also do its part, to help facilitate this preparedness.

The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will make great strides to help our country prepare for a major earthquake, and it does so without burdening the federal taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to quickly adopt this critical piece of legislation and help us better prepare for tragedy.

Mr. President, today Senator Kyl and I are introducing two bills that will assist with alleviating the costs of illegal immigration for State and local governments--the SCAAP Reauthorization Act and the SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011.

We are joined by Senators McCain, Schumer, Boxer, and Hutchison.

Immigration is a federal responsibility, as is securing the Nation's borders. When the Federal Government fails to prevent illegal immigration, as it has for some time now, it needs to take responsibility for the consequences of this failure.

However, the burden of incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes in our country has fallen largely to the States, and it weighs heavily on them, especially during this time of economic uncertainty. Last year, the State of California spent an estimated $1 billion to incarcerate criminal aliens.

Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, and was last reauthorized in 2006 as part of a Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. The SCAAP Reauthorization bill that I am introducing today will reauthorize the program for an additional four years, until fiscal year 2015.

The second bill that we are introducing today is necessary to fix a switch in interpretation by the Justice Department.

Prior to 2003, the Department of Justice interpreted the SCAAP statute to include reimbursement to States and localities for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of State and local offenses, and have been incarcerated for a minimum of 72 hours. However, in 2003, DOJ changed its interpretation, and began limiting reimbursement to the amount States and localities spend incarcerating convicted criminal aliens for at least 4 consecutive days.

Reimbursing States and localities only for the costs when a criminal alien is convicted and incarcerated for 4 consecutive days significantly undermines the goal of SCAAP that States and localities should not bear the burden of a broken Federal immigration system. The actual costs of this failed Federal system begin when these aliens are charged with a crime, transported, and incarcerated for any length of time.

This narrow interpretation by the Justice Department is even more devastating because SCAAP is consistently under-funded. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for SCAAP represents a 59 percent reduction below the fiscal year 2010 level and is far short of meeting the actual reimbursement costs of most States. As a result, SCAAP only reimburses States for a fraction of the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. In 2009, Los Angeles County alone spent $116.6 million to house undocumented felons and received only $15.4 million in reimbursement payments.

The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011 will fix this problem by making it clear that States can be reimbursed for the full costs of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors.

When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at the expense of local services and law enforcement. American communities simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration policies.

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