Floor Statements

Finally, it is my understanding that H.R. 5715 is at the desk and is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings at this time.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony

and representation in criminal trespass actions in Penobscot County Court in Bangor, ME. In these actions, protesters have been charged with trespassing for refusing requests by the police on March 7, 2007, to leave the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building, which houses a number of Federal offices, including Senator Susan Collins' Bangor, ME office. Trials on charges of trespass are scheduled to commence on April 29, 2008. On April 28, 2008, a defendant subpoenaed a member of the Senator's staff who had conversations with the defendant protesters during the charged events. Senator Collins would like to cooperate by providing testimony from that staff member. This resolution would authorize that employee to testify in connection with these actions, with representation by the Senate legal counsel of that employee and any other employee of the Senator from whom evidence may be sought.

Mr. President, Senator Coburn has agreed to come to the floor. I have a couple unanimous consent requests. He wanted to be present when I made these.

Unanimous Consent Requests--S. 579

Mr. President, every year, hundreds of thousands of women in America are diagnosed with breast cancer. Breast cancer will strike approximately one in eight American women in their lifetime, with a new case diagnosed every 2 minutes in America. This year alone, it is estimated that 250,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,000 of them will die.

We have made remarkable progress in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, but we still do not know the cause of breast cancer. There are theories but no one really knows. Scientists have identified some risk factors. Those factors help explain fewer than 30 percent of the cases.

This legislation that I am going to ask unanimous consent for in just a few minutes, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, would establish a national strategy to study the possible links between breast cancer and the environment and would authorize funding for such research.

Eminent scientists believe the breast cancer that is being found, discovered in America, very likely is the result of something in the environment. Resulting discoveries could be critical to improving our knowledge of this complex illness which could lead to better prevention and treatment and even perhaps one day a cure.

Although we first introduced this legislation in 2000, and despite strong bipartisan support--right now we have 68 Senators supporting this legislation and are cosponsors of it, Democrats and Republicans-- Congress has yet to act and send this bill to President Bush. Last session, the bill was reported out of the HELP Committee, but one of our colleagues prevented final Senate passage. This session we have worked in good faith to address any concerns that have been raised about this legislation. As a result, this act was once again reported out of the HELP Committee, and as I have indicated, it is sponsored by 68 Senators.

It is long past time for the Senate to take up and pass this broadly supported bipartisan legislation. Too many women and their families have waited too long for Congress to act. I tried recently, last week, to pass this legislation by unanimous consent, but one Senator objected to my request. In response to that objection, I then offered a time agreement that would allow for 2 hours of debate on this bill with two amendments on each side. I think this is a fair offer for legislation that over two-thirds of this body have cosponsored. This offer was rejected.

I urge that we have this matter move forward. I urge my colleague to reconsider this offer and end the opposition to this matter--opposition to even debating this legislation which enjoys such broad bipartisan support. It is time to offer more than words of encouragement to those affected by breast cancer. Our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends have waited long enough.

I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 628, S. 579, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act; that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, and a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements be printed at the appropriate place in the Record as if given with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand the objection, but I would hope everyone within the sound of my voice understands the lack of logic to the statement just made by my friend, the Senator from the State of Oklahoma. If he has problems with this legislation, why would he prevent the whole Senate from taking it up? Why wouldn't he come to the floor as legislators are supposed to do rather than some guerilla attack and not allowing this to come up, recognizing if I bring this to the floor, it takes time.

Now, I don't understand why, if he has all of these great ideas as to what should or shouldn't be done. Let's bring this to the floor, offer an amendment, offer two amendments. Why stop this matter from being legislated?

So I understand. I can't wave a medical degree, but I can wave the fact that this legislation is important to many people in America today, and this legislation gives them hope that something can be done to find a cause and hopefully a cure. If my friend is so certain of his position, he should be able to offer an amendment and prevail in that regard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 628, S. 527, the Breast Cancer Research Act that was just spoken about, at a time to be determined by me following consultation with the Republican leader, and that the bill be considered under the following limitations: that other than the committee-reported substitute, the only first-degree amendments be four amendments--two for each leader--that are relevant to the provisions of the underlying bill and substitute; that there be a time limit of 1 hour for general debate on the bill and 1 hour on each amendment; with all time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the disposition of all amendments, the use or yielding back of all time, the substitute, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time with no intervening action or debate; and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Of the what?

I say to my friend, I am not aware of the thousands of studies. I am aware of the need to move forward with this legislation. I would say to my friend, if, in fact, there are thousands--and I don't in any way doubt the word of my friend--then why should that be a basis for stopping us to legislate on this issue?

We have 68 Senators who believe this legislation is important. If you, the Senator from Oklahoma, have a cause that this legislation is ill-founded, people are--I have changed my position on legislation before, and I can't understand why you would stand in the way of allowing this legislation to be legislated. That is what we do here. We are legislators.

So, no, I am not familiar with the thousands of studies.

Mr. President, I first got interested in diseases of women a number of years ago when in my Las Vegas office three women came to see me. They didn't want to be there. They were embarrassed for being there. They had a condition. It is called interstitial fasciitis. I had never heard the words before, and it is still hard for me to say these words after all of these years. But I looked into this. The NIH and the scientific community and the country thought this was a psychosomatic disease; that this was something these women had in their head; that even though each of them described the pain the same--like slivers of glass being shoved up and down their bladder--it was all in their head.

I had the good fortune of having a woman, who is an orthopedic surgeon, who had this same condition, and she said: This is not in my head, it is in my bladder, and something should be done to study this. We have begged the NIH to do it. We have had others that we have asked to do it, and they are not doing anything: You, Senator Reid, should have something done about this.

And we did this. We established a registry. We did that by legislation. As a result of that, now almost 50 percent of the people who have that disease have medicine to take that takes away their symptoms, the pain. It is pretty good.

Have we cured the disease? No, we haven't. But progress has been made because, as policymakers, that is what we do. We set policy. The NIH is a body of this legislature, this Congress, and we have an obligation and a right to direct them to do things. Now, they do good work. They do very good work. But there are other things that we think they should be doing.

Who cares about this, my friend asks? Well, who is lobbying for this, he asks? Two hundred and fifty thousand women who are going to get the disease this year are the lobbyists. They don't come here, all of them, and 40,000 to 250,000 are going to die. Now, is every penny of this money that we want to appropriate going to hit the mark and do the right thing? Maybe not, but it is going to lead to some discoveries that

will help this disease and probably other diseases.

So I say, I am disappointed and we are going to continue to work this issue. This issue is not going to go away. It is not only this Senator but 67 other Senators and others who will support this when and if we get this to the floor. So I appreciate the courtesy of my friend from Oklahoma. He is a gentleman. I disagree with him on occasion, but I appreciate his statement.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5613

We have more than 50 million low-income people--about 1 out of 6 Americans--depend on Medicaid for their health care. These are the poorest of the poor.

This administration has issued a series of regulations that will undermine the Medicaid safety net and create barriers for accessing care for the poorest of the poor.

These regulations, touted by the administration as ``savings,'' would not lower health care costs.

Instead States--already facing tough economic times, strained budgets, and increased demand for services such as Medicaid--will either have to raise revenues elsewhere or be forced to cut services to our Nation's most vulnerable at a time when they need help the most.

Each regulation has different impact on individuals, providers, communities, and States. They include, among other things, detrimental provisions, such as limiting services for people with disabilities; preventing children from receiving health care during the schoolday; cutting payments to public hospitals and other safety net providers for such undertakings as emergency rooms, burn units, and trauma centers.

The administration claims these regulations are necessary to fight fraud and waste in the Medicaid Program. But in a recent hearing on the Medicaid Program, the General Accounting Office testified it did not recommend the administration's proposed changes. They would not help.

We are committed to ferreting out any fraud that may exist in the Medicaid Program. But regulations that harm our most vulnerable and place greater burden on fiscally strapped States are clearly not the way to accomplish this end.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 719, H.R. 5613--which, I might add, passed the House by a huge vote--a bill to protect the Medicaid safety net; that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, as I indicated in the last piece of legislation we tried to move forward on, would my friend allow us to bring it to the floor and debate the issue and offer amendments to it?

How long do you think that would take?

I appreciate that.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Does the Senator acknowledge that with diseases such as interstitial fasciitis, more than 90 percent of the people who have that disease are women? Women-related diseases have not gotten the attention they deserve, and one reason is because the legislature has been dominated by men.

Mr. President, we are going to be in a period of morning business until 4:30 today, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. Senator Dorgan is controlling 30 minutes of the majority's time. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2881, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization. At 5:30 today there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to that bill.

As a reminder to all Senators, Wednesday, at 11 a.m., there will be a joint meeting of Congress in the Hall of the House of Representatives, with the Prime Minister of Ireland, Bertie Ahern, presenting his statement to the country.

I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to these bills, en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate is directed to request the House of Representatives to return to the Senate the bill, H.R. 493.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask the time during the quorum call be equally divided between the majority and minority.

Mr. President, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, UNLV. In 1957, UNLV was born as an extension of the University of Nevada, Reno, to accommodate the rapidly growing population of Las Vegas.

The first classes were held in the dressing rooms of Las Vegas High

School's auditorium. There were only 28 students. When the Nevada Board of Regents founded the Southern Nevada Division of the University of Nevada, students led the charge to become their own independent institution. They adopted the Rebel as their mascot to signify their desire to break free of the Reno campus. With pressure from students and the Las Vegas community, an 80-acre parcel along a two-lane dirt road was selected as the location for the campus. On September 10, 1957, the first classes were held on the new campus. And in 1968, UNLV began its journey as an independent institution.

Over the past 50 years, Las Vegas has grown and become the entertainment capital of the world, and just like the city that it calls home, UNLV, too, has had its fair share of celebrity. In 1964 Elvis Presley and Ann-Margret danced in the gym in the famous scene from the film ``Viva Las Vegas''. Frank Sinatra and Wayne Newton served on the UNLV Foundation's board in the 1980s and Anthony Zuiker, the creator and producer of the hit show ``CSI'', is an alumni.

Today, UNLV is a thriving urban research institution with more than 28,000 students and more than 220 undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degree programs. The campus--now 350 acres--boasts over 100 buildings with state-of-the-art technology and research facilities. Two of the most recent additions have been a new student union and a student recreation and wellness facility all paid for by the students. In 1998, UNLV opened the Boyd School of Law, which quickly gained accreditation from the American Bar Association and is now nationally ranked for its quality legal education. This year, UNLV also welcomed its eighth president, David Ashley.

Many outside of Nevada know of UNLV for its athletic teams. The Rebels participate in 17 intercollegiate sports. In 1990, the Runnin' Rebels won the NCAA Men's Division I tournament, beating Duke 103 to 73, the largest margin of victory ever in the championship game. While the Runnin' Rebels have continued to be a perennial player in the NCAA tournament, in recent years, UNLV athletics have also achieved success in golf, swimming and diving, boxing, track and field, and soccer.

In its first 50 years, UNLV has grown from a satellite outpost of higher learning to a major player in the fields of gaming and hotel management, environmental and experimental science, engineering, English, and law. UNLV has blossomed with the city around it, and as UNLV enters its next 50 years, I am confident that it will continue to prosper and strengthen the city it calls home.

Mr. President, we are going to be in a period for the transaction of morning business this morning for 1 hour. The majority will control the first 30 minutes and the Republicans will control the final 30 minutes.

Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1315, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act. There will be up to 60 minutes for debate on the Burr amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, to be followed by a vote on passage of the bill.

Upon disposition of the veterans bill, the Senate will consider H.R. 493, the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act. The only amendment in order to the bill is a Snowe-Kennedy-Enzi substitute. There will be up to 2 hours for debate on the substitute and on the bill prior to a vote on passage of this legislation. We expect the first vote to occur around noon today, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, GINA, is the culmination of many years of work. This effort began over a dozen years ago and would not be possible without the work of many Members on both sides of the aisle.

Senator Daschle worked tirelessly on this legislation during his time as Democratic leader. Senator Jeffords was also a dedicated champion of this bill. Passage of this legislation today would not be possible without the perseverance of the bill's sponsors, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee Chairman Kennedy, HELP Committee Ranking Member Enzi, and Senator Snowe. Senators Dodd and Harkin have also been central to this effort. Congresswomen Slaughter and Biggert along with Congressmen Miller, Dingell, and Rangel have been leaders on this issue in the House. Thanks to their collective commitment to GINA, this crucial piece of legislation is finally on the verge of becoming law.

I also want to acknowledge the Coalition for Genetic Fairness and the many other organizations representing patient groups, medical professionals, scientists, researchers, families, and employees who advocated tirelessly on behalf of the protections offered by this legislation. They never let us forget about the urgent need to enact GINA and the dire consequences of neglecting this issue.

There are too many individuals and groups to mention by name, but I do want to single out one individual in particular. Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, has been an important voice in this debate. Dr. Collins' groundbreaking work in advancing the science of genomics has led us to powerful new insights into the links between genes and common diseases such as diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn's disease. He has dedicated himself to securing Federal protection against genetic discrimination so that the American people do not have to fear discrimination because they have had genetic tests or participated in genetic research.

Every one of us stands to benefit from this landmark legislation. Genetic research is advancing at a remarkable pace. The sequencing of the human genetic code has already allowed doctors to develop better ways to diagnose, prevent, or treat some of the most dreaded diseases known to man. In 2007 alone, researchers discovered more than 70 gene variants associated with common diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Each of these discoveries suggests new options for both the treatment and prevention of these diseases. However, these exciting advances are being threatened by fears of genetic discrimination.

This concern has been communicated to me in hundreds of meetings, letters, and phone calls from constituents.

For example, a woman from Las Vegas who is affected by pulmonary hypertension, a continuous high blood pressure in the arteries that supply the lungs, wrote the following:

Life expectancy for PH patients who do not receive

treatment averages 2.5 years, but with early, appropriate

treatment, some patients are now able to manage their PH for

twenty years or more. . . . GINA will allow patients with a

family history of PH to pursue genetic testing and receive

life-saving treatment without fear of related discrimination.

And a man from Las Vegas, who suffers from Polycystic Kidney Disease, PKD, a life-threatening genetic disease affecting the kidneys, wrote:

Fear of genetic discrimination keeps many PKD families from

testing for the presence of the disease or seeking treatments

that could prolong their kidney function. In addition, fear

of genetic discrimination has adversely affected many

clinical drug trials now underway in the PKD research field.

These clinical trials desperately need volunteers to

participate, but many with PKD are fearful their

participation in such trials will be used against them by

their insurers and/or employers.

For genetic research to fulfill its true potential, patients need strong protections against genetic discrimination. GINA will establish strong protections against discrimination based on genetic information in health insurance

and employment. As a result, patients can receive the best possible medical treatments without having to fear that genetic information will be used against them by their insurers or by their employers. The bill will also allow researchers to pursue the promise of genetic research by ensuring the confidentiality of genetic information by participants in clinical trials. GINA will enable all Americans to take full advantage of potentially life-saving genetic testing, and will pave the way for full realization of the promise of personalized medicine.

The House will soon take up and pass this legislation, and I urge President Bush to sign this bill into law.

Mr. President, I rise today, on the 93rd anniversary of the onset of the Armenian genocide, to honor the victims of this terrible tragedy and to reiterate my unwavering support for the United States Government to officially recognize as genocide the series of atrocities carried out against the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire beginning on April 24, 1915.

It truly saddens me that after 93 years, the United States has failed to acknowledge the Armenian genocide for what it was. Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire forcibly deported around 2 million Armenians, of whom 1.5 million men, women, and children were killed. Those fortunate enough to survive the massacres, forced marches, and deliberate starvation, were ejected from their homeland.

In response to reports of these horrific events, U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau, Sr. explicitly condemned the policy of the Government of the Ottoman Empire as ``a campaign of race extermination.'' Moreover, Ambassador Morgenthau was praised by U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing for his efforts ``to stop Armenian persecution.''

Perhaps more significant to the Chamber in which I stand today was the passage of S. Con. Res. 12 on February 9, 1916. This prescient piece of legislation not only acknowledged that a colossal tragedy had ensued in the midst of the Great War, but also resolved that the President of the United States ``designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians,'' who, at that time, were enduring ``starvation, disease, and untold suffering'' at the hands of the Ottoman leadership.

Less than 4 years later, while the Armenian genocide continued, the Senate would also pass S. Res. 359, which stated, in part, that recent congressional testimony ``clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered.''

I say to my friends in the Senate, given how our esteemed colleagues of the past reflected on this terrible tragedy, I cannot help but think that they would have surely labeled these atrocities as genocide if only the word had been coined. The United States has a rich history of defending human rights, standing up for the oppressed, and speaking the truth about genocide. However, in spite of support from Members of Congress and leaders in the Armenian community, the official policy of the executive branch of the United States still does not recognize the Armenian genocide.

I am so proud that my home state of Nevada, with its vibrant Armenian-American community, and 40 other U.S. States have, by legislation or proclamation, already recognized the Armenian Genocide. In fact, on April 11, 2000, former Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn proclaimed April 24, 2000, as a day of remembrance of ``The First Genocide of the 20th Century.''

I would also like to congratulate the Armenian-Americans of southern Nevada for planning yet another successful Armenian Genocide Commemoration event on the campus of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. It is so wonderful to see this community from my home county come together each year to honor the survivors and their deceased brethren, and I wish my Armenian friends in Nevada the best of luck with this year's commemoration and those for years to come. May God bless them and all of those who fight on their behalf.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 383, H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, April 28, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to invoke cloture at 4:30, with the time until 5:30 equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; and that at 5:30 the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2881, with the mandatory quorum call being waived.

I ask unanimous consent the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions through the recess or adjournment of the Senate until Monday, April 28, of this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from consideration of H.R. 4286.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and that all statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.