Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to commemorate and pay tribute to the life of a great Washingtonian, a great American, and someone who in the State of Washington will be remembered for his great contributions and who will be remembered across our country. I am talking about our former Washington State Speaker of the House, John L. O'Brien, who died this past week at the age of 95. Speaker O'Brien actually passed away on the last day of this year's legislative session, almost an appropriate dedication for him for the remembrance of his service in our State government.

I am proud to say John L. O'Brien was a good friend, a mentor, and someone who imparted a lot of political wisdom in the State of Washington. He served in our State legislature for 52 years, from 1939 to 1993, and he served as speaker of the house for a chunk of that period, 1955 to 1963. He served under nine different Governors. At one point in time, I believe, he held the record in our country for the longest serving State legislator.

He did a tremendous job as majority leader; I am sure at times as minority leader; as speaker, as I mentioned, speaker pro tem. I believe he served on every single committee in our State legislature. He led our State's government through some great challenges

for us and for our country. He literally was in office when the United States went to declare World War II in 1954. He was speaker when the first flight of the Boeing 707 was completed. He saw the Space Needle completed for the World's Fair that was held in Seattle in 1962. He was there when Microsoft was founded. He led our State through the challenging times responding to Mount St. Helen's eruption in 1980. And he was there to lead our celebration as Washington State celebrated our 100th anniversary as a State in 1989.

But John O'Brien also was a man who thought about the future, and he has an unending list of accomplishments that literally touched the lives of thousands of Washingtonians. He changed the course of history in our State by his generosity, by his leadership, by his commitment, his inspiration.

I know my remarks will not do him justice, but I just want to say that he did a lot in a time and period of making sure that despite the lofty position he held in the house, he never lost track of what the constituents of his district and of our State cared about. He worked on property tax relief for seniors and low-income individuals. He fought for prescription and over-the-counter drug information labeling so that seniors knew what kind of products they were purchasing. He was a champion of State employee collective bargaining and workplace safety issues. He sponsored Washington State's first clean air act. That might sound like something lots of people do, but he actually sponsored that legislation in 1940. So he was ahead of his time in thinking about Washington State's environment and how to preserve the pristine quality of life that is so important to us.

He helped to establish one of the first programs in the Nation to commit a percentage of our construction budget for the creation of art. He helped save and restore Franklin High School. He worked to make sure we established a drug-free zone and got legislation passed removing the sales tax from items sold at charitable auctions.

John O'Brien represented one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Seattle, an area called the Rainer Valley. The Rainer Valley began as an Irish and Italian community of immigrants, and with Speaker O'Brien's leadership, it helped to incorporate various waves of new immigrants from various communities: the Chinese-American community, Japanese, Filipino, African American, Orthodox Jews, Vietnamese, East African, and Hispanic citizens. Now, it is, as I said, one of the most diverse areas of our State.

When the Seattle Times ran a story about Speaker O'Brien's life and how his values were shaped, they said:

Mr. O'Brien was just 7 years old when his Irish immigrant

father, a detective with the Seattle Police, came home after

a particularly tough day on the job. He turned to his eldest

son and asked, rhetorically, ``What will ever become of you

if something happens to me?''

Two years later his father was shot and killed while on duty. That left the young Mr. O'Brien to help his mother, also an Irish immigrant, care for their siblings. By the time he was a teenager, he was bringing home a paycheck as a truckdriver for Keefe's Grocery in Rainier Valley. He went on to start his own accounting firm.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer quoted former Governor Dan Evans, who knew John O'Brien well, who said:

He knew how to lead and occasionally when things got

rambunctious, he had to have a heavy gavel to get things back

in order.

Evans remembered one time when he challenged an O'Brien ruling, O'Brien slammed his gavel down so hard the head snapped off.

While O'Brien was a fiscally conservative Democrat, he understood what the role of the speaker required of him. He was always ready to have a good time.

I remember that if there was ever anybody who captured the saying, ``when Irish eyes are smiling,'' it was John O'Brien because he had a twinkle in his eye and a way to get people engaged. When I entered the State legislature at the age of 28, I was the youngest member at the time, and he was the most senior member of our legislature. Knowing of my Irish heritage background, he got me to commit to him that I would participate in St. Patrick's Day celebrations in his office by doing the Irish jig if, in fact, he produced someone with a bagpipe.

Well, unbeknownst to me, our secretary of state, Ralph Monroe, of Scottish heritage, had such bagpipes stored in his office and was quite frequently seen in the halls of Olympia playing the bagpipes. So on St. Patrick's Day I did participate in Speaker O'Brien's St. Patrick's Day celebration, as did our secretary of state, Ralph Monroe, and many others.

I hope to this day that there is not a picture of my rendition of my Irish heritage dance. But I know I will always remember on St. Patrick's Day John O'Brien and his great service and his heritage in our State.

On the last two pages of his biography, ``Speaker of the House,'' Speaker John O'Brien sums up his philosophy on how to survive in a legislature. He said:

Do your best, count the votes, and, win or lose, move on to

other pressing issues.

He said:

It might stay with you for a while, but as far as being

disappointed, you cannot let it remain as a personal matter

because there's always another rollcall. There's always

another day.

We can find inspiration in Speaker O'Brien's service as we face tough legislative issues here and as we face our vote today. No matter on what side of the political aisle you stand, we can all join in honoring the inspiration from others who have served and honoring the life of Speaker John L. O'Brien for his lifetime of public service.

My thoughts are with his family: his wife Mary, their six children, John O'Brien, Jr., Laurie, MaryAnn, Karen, Jeannie, and Paul, and to their grandchildren.

John O'Brien was a great Washingtonian, a great citizen of our country, and we will miss him, and we will try to live up to his accomplishments and to his legacy.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about House bill H.R. 137, which has a companion Senate bill, S. 261, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. This is legislation that both the House and Senate have had much discussion on in the last several years, and something I hope will make its way to the consent calendar and final action this evening.

I come to the floor tonight as someone who has been a cosponsor of this legislation for several years now, and as someone who has seen the impact of animal fighting in the state of Washington where animal fighting organizations have not only been a source of all sorts of cruel and inhumane treatment of animals, but also other illegal activity. To me this is legislation that is much needed, and we have passed similar legislation in the State of Washington. It is something we should have a strong Federal statute on.

During October of 2004, there was a major raid in Vancouver, WA, where police found 21 pit bulls, as well as training logs and other evidence of animal fighting. It got quite a bit of attention as well because there were very high-profile people involved with the animal fighting ring.

There is a long list of other incidents that have happened in Washington State, other activity in Yakima, WA, where various animal fighting organizations were discovered by law enforcement who have done a terrific job of uprooting these organizations in our State. It is important we take an aggressive stance and pass this legislation.

The House bill we are talking about, H.R. 137, recently passed the House of Representatives, I believe with over 300 cosponsors. I am sure it had quite a few others who actually supported the legislation as it passed. We have over 35 cosponsors here with S. 261.

When I look at the legislative history of this bill, it has had remarkably broad bipartisan support. It was passed by both the House and the Senate in the past. It was passed in both Chambers in 2001 and then struck in the conference report. It passed in 2003 in the Senate. It passed in 2005 again in the Senate, a unanimous measure. As I mentioned, it passed the House of Representatives. I think it is fitting that it should be on our consent calendar and hopefully pass this body this evening.

The bottom line is, there are many organizations across the country that have seen the inhumane treatment of animals and have supported this legislation. The American Veterinary Medical Association supports the bill, obviously. The National Sheriffs Association supports this legislation. Police departments have been working in every part of the country and have endorsed this legislation because they see what kind of criminal activity is associated with animal fighting--gambling, drugs, and in one case in Washington State actual murder. The Federal antianimal fighting legislation is important. While we already have a Federal statute on the books, what we don't have is a Federal statute that effectively helps law enforcement meet this growing challenge. That is, with a simple misdemeanor, which is currently on the Federal books, sometimes it takes law enforcement as many as 7 to 8 months to investigate these kinds of crimes. To investigate and put that kind of energy into fighting this kind of criminal activity in our States, and then to have a maximum penalty of only up to 1 year is not adequate.

In fact, in Washington State, in response to the activities that occurred in Vancouver and other parts of our State, our Governor signed an antianimal fighting bill that has been a great model for what we should be doing at the Federal level. As Washington did, this bill would make sure this crime is a felony and that it has adequate penalties. In fact, when the current Federal animal fighting law was enacted in 1976, only one State made it a felony. Today dogfighting is a felony in 48 States. We need to make sure that it is also a felony at the Federal level for transporting these animals and products associated with animal fighting across State lines. In fact, we are seeing that in many cases.

In Washington State and in Oregon, we have seen this activity, because people in several States are joining together to locate and to make a profit and make investments in these kinds of criminal activities.

We want to make sure we are stamping out this activity. With this legislation, we believe we have a very good chance to say that the Federal Government views this kind of animal fighting as cruel and inhumane, that we consider it a serious criminal activity to drug and force animals to fight and then to enclose them in pits while spectators engage in all sorts of gambling, narcotics trafficking, public corruption, and, in some cases, even violence toward people. That is something we ought to take a tough stance against.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I hope we can consider it in tonight's consent calendar, given how the Judiciary Committee has supported this legislation, and how it has passed both the House and Senate in the past.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act of 2007, which will make needed improvements to our national and regional ocean observing systems.

The Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act would establish a national program to focus on national and international ocean observing priorities, and provide needed support for a network of regional associations that already collect and manage information in ocean and coastal areas across the nation.

Currently, most long term ocean observing and data collection is carried out on a regional basis. While these regional ocean observing systems provide valuable data, lack of coordination at the national level and a lack of sustained resources have limited their effectiveness for advancing a comprehensive understanding of our oceans and coasts. The Coastal and Ocean Observation Systems Act of 2007 would help to rectify this by organizing regional activities under a federal interagency committee within NOAA.

Improving long-term ocean observing and monitoring is a key recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and will provide the information needed to restore and sustain healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems. Specifically, this bill would bolster the Nation's ability to observe and monitor ocean conditions in order to improve tsunami warnings, better understand the impacts of climate change on the oceans, track ocean conditions that could impact human health, improve homeland security, and support maritime operations.

Fishermen and mariners rely on accurate forecasts of ocean conditions for safety and navigation. An integrated ocean observing system would improve these forecasts and will save lives at sea. Ocean observing will also help authorities understand the link between ocean conditions and human health. For example, improved tracking of harmful algal blooms can minimize the risk of shellfish poisoning by warning people when the conditions exist that make harvesting shellfish dangerous.

An integrated ocean and coastal observing system will prove an invaluable tool as we work to understand and overcome the challenges of climate change. The ocean covers 70 percent of

the globe and plays a critical role in regulating our climate. Scientists are finding that the ocean environment is often the first of the earth's ecosystems to display the impacts of climate change.

We've already detected some of these impacts, from ocean acidification's impacts on North Pacific food chains and coral reefs in the tropics, to seasonal ocean dead zones that are forming off the coast of Washington and Oregon. The effects of climate change will be felt by our fishermen and coastal communities, and ocean observing will give them the information they need to mitigate impacts.

As we seek a better understanding of our oceans and coasts and the ecosystems that form the basis of life for much of the Earth's population, an integrated ocean observing system. will be an essential investment.

Mr. President, I think we all agree that the United States Coast Guard plays a critical role in keeping our oceans, coasts, and waterways safe, secure, and free from environmental harm. Following the events of September 11 and, more recently, Hurricane Katrina the Coast Guard has served as a source of strength for this Nation. And, in the face of increasing marine traffic, security threats at our Nation's ports, and climate change increasing the odds of another Katrina, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard continue to increase.

The Coast Guard is struggling right now to replace their rapidly aging fleet of ships, aircraft, and facilities. At a cost of $24 billion, the Deepwater program is the largest and most complex acquisition program in the history of the Coast Guard. We have a responsibility to ensure there is transparency and oversight so this program is as efficient and effective as possible.

The Deepwater program utilizes a private sector lead systems integrator, LSI, know as Integrated Coast Guard Systems, ICGS, to oversee acquisition of a ``system of systems.'' When the Deepwater contract was originally awarded in 2002, the Coast Guard did not have the personnel within their acquisition department to manage such a large contract. We were told that outsourcing that role to industry would save the Coast Guard time and money over the long run.

The approach, which may have seemed innovative at the time, has not produced the promised results. Instead of cost and time savings, we've seen less competition, inadequate technical oversight and a lack of transparency. Over the last year, these problems have caused major blunders in the Deepwater program.

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, IG, has released three recent reports detailing some of the problems with Deepwater.

In an August 11, 2006 report titled Major Improvements Needed in the U.S. Coast Guard's Implementation of Deepwater Information Technology System, the IG described problems with Deepwater's C41SR electronics equipment, which is to be the integrating technology linking Deepwater's aircraft and ships.

On January 29, 2007, the IG released a scathing report on Deepwater's flagship National Security Cutter, NSC, documenting crucial design flaws and cost overruns created by a faulty contract structure and lack of Coast Guard oversight.

Finally, on February 9, 2007, the IG released another report, this one detailing serious issues with Deepwater's 123-foot cutter conversion project.

These reports, along with others by the Government Accountability Office about problems with the stalled Fast Response Cutter, FRC, program and the Deepwater contract structure, have prompted a resounding cry for Deepwater reform, transparency, and oversight.

On February 14, 2007, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard to better understand these issues and seek solutions. From that hearing it was clear that the Coast Guard was working hard to make internal reforms. It was also clear that we needed to do more to protect the American taxpayer.

Today, I'm pleased to introduce, along with Senator Snowe, the Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act, a comprehensive bill which makes fundamental changes to the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition program.

My bill requires the Coast Guard to move away from the industry-led Lead Systems Integrator and have full and open competition for future Deepwater assets.

It requires a completely new ``analysis of alternatives'' of all future Deepwater assets to ensure that the Coast Guard is getting the assets best-suited for their needs.

It requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to certify to Congress that specific assets to be procured are mature and cost-effective technologies, a requirement already applied to Department of Defense contracts.

And, it gives the Coast Guard the tools they need to manage this contract and future contracts effectively, including requiring the Coast Guard to make internal management changes to ensure open competition, increase technical oversight and improve reporting to Congress.

I'm pleased to say that I have worked closely with Senator Snowe and the Coast Guard in crafting this bill and I'm confident that this will fix many of the problems that have plagued the Deepwater program.

This legislation takes a big step towards getting the Coast Guard the assets they need to meet the pressing needs of our Nation and ensuring responsible management of taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the changes we propose today so we can get this program back on track.

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

Mr. President, I think we all agree that the United States Coast Guard plays a critical role in keeping our oceans, coasts, and waterways safe, secure, and free from environmental harm. Following the events of September 11 and, more recently, Hurricane Katrina the Coast Guard has served as a source of strength for this Nation. And, in the face of increasing marine traffic, security threats at our Nation's ports, and climate change increasing the odds of another Katrina, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard continue to increase.

The Coast Guard is struggling right now to replace their rapidly aging fleet of ships, aircraft, and facilities. At a cost of $24 billion, the Deepwater program is the largest and most complex acquisition program in the history of the Coast Guard. We have a responsibility to ensure there is transparency and oversight so this program is as efficient and effective as possible.

The Deepwater program utilizes a private sector lead systems integrator, LSI, know as Integrated Coast Guard Systems, ICGS, to oversee acquisition of a ``system of systems.'' When the Deepwater contract was originally awarded in 2002, the Coast Guard did not have the personnel within their acquisition department to manage such a large contract. We were told that outsourcing that role to industry would save the Coast Guard time and money over the long run.

The approach, which may have seemed innovative at the time, has not produced the promised results. Instead of cost and time savings, we've seen less competition, inadequate technical oversight and a lack of transparency. Over the last year, these problems have caused major blunders in the Deepwater program.

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, IG, has released three recent reports detailing some of the problems with Deepwater.

In an August 11, 2006 report titled Major Improvements Needed in the U.S. Coast Guard's Implementation of Deepwater Information Technology System, the IG described problems with Deepwater's C41SR electronics equipment, which is to be the integrating technology linking Deepwater's aircraft and ships.

On January 29, 2007, the IG released a scathing report on Deepwater's flagship National Security Cutter, NSC, documenting crucial design flaws and cost overruns created by a faulty contract structure and lack of Coast Guard oversight.

Finally, on February 9, 2007, the IG released another report, this one detailing serious issues with Deepwater's 123-foot cutter conversion project.

These reports, along with others by the Government Accountability Office about problems with the stalled Fast Response Cutter, FRC, program and the Deepwater contract structure, have prompted a resounding cry for Deepwater reform, transparency, and oversight.

On February 14, 2007, I chaired a hearing in the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard to better understand these issues and seek solutions. From that hearing it was clear that the Coast Guard was working hard to make internal reforms. It was also clear that we needed to do more to protect the American taxpayer.

Today, I'm pleased to introduce, along with Senator Snowe, the Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act, a comprehensive bill which makes fundamental changes to the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition program.

My bill requires the Coast Guard to move away from the industry-led Lead Systems Integrator and have full and open competition for future Deepwater assets.

It requires a completely new ``analysis of alternatives'' of all future Deepwater assets to ensure that the Coast Guard is getting the assets best-suited for their needs.

It requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to certify to Congress that specific assets to be procured are mature and cost-effective technologies, a requirement already applied to Department of Defense contracts.

And, it gives the Coast Guard the tools they need to manage this contract and future contracts effectively, including requiring the Coast Guard to make internal management changes to ensure open competition, increase technical oversight and improve reporting to Congress.

I'm pleased to say that I have worked closely with Senator Snowe and the Coast Guard in crafting this bill and I'm confident that this will fix many of the problems that have plagued the Deepwater program.

This legislation takes a big step towards getting the Coast Guard the assets they need to meet the pressing needs of our Nation and ensuring responsible management of taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the changes we propose today so we can get this program back on track.

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

Mr. President, early in the 109th Congress I introduced a bill to address the troubling shortage of allied health professionals in our country. Sadly, we were unable to act on this bill despite continuing deficiencies in the health care workforce. That is why, today, I am reintroducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act, along with my good colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Kennedy, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, and Murray.

Allied health professionals constitute roughly one third of the American healthcare workforce. These individuals take x-rays, perform lab tests, and provide emergency services. They help rehabilitate the injured, manage health records, and ensure patients are eating right. Allied health professionals are responsible for a critical and diverse array of functions, working with doctors and nurses to keep patients healthy.

The allied health professions recognized in this bill include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech language-pathology/audiology. This is by no means a complete list of allied health professions, which is why the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to determine additional professions that can benefit.

Today, many allied health professions suffer from existing workforce shortages. The American Hospital Association (AHA) reports vacancy rates of 18 percent for radiology technicians, 15.3 percent for imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent for pharmacy technicians. In my State alone, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent for ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent for radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent for nuclear medicine technologists.

These shortages have real consequences for patients, often extending wait times for important test results or routine examinations. Every time I meet with hospital officials in my State, I always learn how patient care is hurt by the lack of available healthcare workers.

Enrollment figures in allied health education programs suggest we will not have the individuals available to meet the challenges created by existing shortages. The Association of Schools of Allied Health Professionals (ASAHP) reports in a 2006 survey of 87 member institutions that enrollment for a number of allied health programs have not reached capacity for the seventh straight year. The Institutional Profile Survey, which the ASAHP conducts every year, shows under-enrollment by 55 percent in dietetics, 54 percent in health administration, 49 percent in rehabilitation counseling, 43 percent in health information management, 38 percent in speech language pathology/ audiology, 33 percent in emergency medical sciences, 26 percent in nuclear medicine technology, 25 percent in clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, and 20 percent in cytotechnology.

These rates cannot continue. On top of existing workforce shortages, our health system faces a growing senior population, a group that typically requires more care. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the section of our population age 65 and over will begin to rapidly increase in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65. This increase will create greater demand on all sectors of the healthcare workforce.

The bill my colleagues and I introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, intends to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high-quality allied health education and training.

The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants will establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in non-institutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants will promote career advancement for allied health personnel.

Grants will also be made available for health care facilities to enable them to carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded in a variety of geographic regions to a range of different types of facilities, including those in rural, urban, and suburban areas.

Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program.

Finally, the Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program modeled after the National Health Service Corps that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas.

The Allied Health Reinvestment Act represents a serious commitment on our part to confront a problem that will only grow more serious in the future. Our system of care cannot operate without the dedicated allied health professionals working today, and we must take the actions necessary to ensure that there is a strong workforce that can serve in the future.

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

Mr. President, early in the 109th Congress I introduced a bill to address the troubling shortage of allied health professionals in our country. Sadly, we were unable to act on this bill despite continuing deficiencies in the health care workforce. That is why, today, I am reintroducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act, along with my good colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Kennedy, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, and Murray.

Allied health professionals constitute roughly one third of the American healthcare workforce. These individuals take x-rays, perform lab tests, and provide emergency services. They help rehabilitate the injured, manage health records, and ensure patients are eating right. Allied health professionals are responsible for a critical and diverse array of functions, working with doctors and nurses to keep patients healthy.

The allied health professions recognized in this bill include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech language-pathology/audiology. This is by no means a complete list of allied health professions, which is why the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to determine additional professions that can benefit.

Today, many allied health professions suffer from existing workforce shortages. The American Hospital Association (AHA) reports vacancy rates of 18 percent for radiology technicians, 15.3 percent for imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent for pharmacy technicians. In my State alone, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent for ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent for radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent for nuclear medicine technologists.

These shortages have real consequences for patients, often extending wait times for important test results or routine examinations. Every time I meet with hospital officials in my State, I always learn how patient care is hurt by the lack of available healthcare workers.

Enrollment figures in allied health education programs suggest we will not have the individuals available to meet the challenges created by existing shortages. The Association of Schools of Allied Health Professionals (ASAHP) reports in a 2006 survey of 87 member institutions that enrollment for a number of allied health programs have not reached capacity for the seventh straight year. The Institutional Profile Survey, which the ASAHP conducts every year, shows under-enrollment by 55 percent in dietetics, 54 percent in health administration, 49 percent in rehabilitation counseling, 43 percent in health information management, 38 percent in speech language pathology/ audiology, 33 percent in emergency medical sciences, 26 percent in nuclear medicine technology, 25 percent in clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, and 20 percent in cytotechnology.

These rates cannot continue. On top of existing workforce shortages, our health system faces a growing senior population, a group that typically requires more care. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the section of our population age 65 and over will begin to rapidly increase in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65. This increase will create greater demand on all sectors of the healthcare workforce.

The bill my colleagues and I introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, intends to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high-quality allied health education and training.

The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants will establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in non-institutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants will promote career advancement for allied health personnel.

Grants will also be made available for health care facilities to enable them to carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded in a variety of geographic regions to a range of different types of facilities, including those in rural, urban, and suburban areas.

Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program.

Finally, the Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program modeled after the National Health Service Corps that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas.

The Allied Health Reinvestment Act represents a serious commitment on our part to confront a problem that will only grow more serious in the future. Our system of care cannot operate without the dedicated allied health professionals working today, and we must take the actions necessary to ensure that there is a strong workforce that can serve in the future.

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

Mr. President, I was unfortunately delayed from voting on the DeMint amendment No. 158--rollcall vote No. 25. For the record, I would have voted no on the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. President, on Martin Luther King Day, we celebrated a man and honored his legacy. It is an opportunity to recognize the movement he inspired and carry it forward with renewed energy. I consider his work and his words, striving to give them both new life.

``The arc of the moral universe is long,'' King said, ``but it bends towards justice.'' As a national community, we must never rest in the pursuit of that justice. We must always demand that our community leaders and elected officials pursue their work with compassion and integrity. This year, as we commemorate Dr. King's bold vision and great spirit, our Nation stands at a critical point along that arc.

The American people called for a new direction and a new tone in Washington, DC. They put the politics of polarization aside and asked their representatives in Washington to focus instead on the issues that matter most. Too many hard-working Americans are struggling just to get by today. It is time to expand opportunity for all and ensure everyone has a real shot at the American dream.

The best guarantee of a good, secure job in today's increasingly competitive world is a quality education. But not everyone has that opportunity. I know what it is like to have a tough time affording college: With the help of Federal Pell grants, I was the first in my family to graduate from college. Today, a college education costs a small fortune, yet it is harder than ever to find help.

Since 2001, tuition has increased by over 30 percent at the average 4-year public school. Over the same period, family incomes have increased less than 6 percent. As the cost of college continues to rise and family incomes stagnate, more and more students are qualifying for Pell grants and other Federal student aid programs. We can't let a college education become a privilege just for the wealthy. We must ensure that families and students can afford college, regardless of their financial resources.

That is why in the Senate, I am fighting to increase the maximum Pell grant to $5,100--an amount that actually keeps pace with costs. That is also why, on the first day of the 110th session of Congress earlier this month, I introduced legislation to permanently increase the amount that families can save annually for college and take as a tax deduction.

On the same day, in that same spirit, I introduced other legislation to encourage employees to set aside money for their education costs and to encourage employers to provide matching funds through lifelong learning accounts. It is about investing in a more competitive America, a growing economy, and our common future. We are creating a better world for our businesses, our State, and most importantly our workers.

The policies we choose to support reflect our priorities as a nation. When the middle-class gets squeezed from every side, it may be easiest to relent, accept the status quo, or give in to frustration. But we have a responsibility to fight back and to fight for something better. That is what Martin Luther King may have called infinite hope. We can honor King by coming together and making that promise a reality.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues, Senators Specter and Ensign, in reintroducing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this important bill finally become the law of the land.

There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs.

It's all done for ``entertainment'' and illegal gambling. Children are sometimes brought to these spectacles, and the fights are frequently accompanied by illegal drug trafficking and acts of human violence. In 2006, nine murders related to animal fighting occurred across the country.

Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a ``cost of doing business'' by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide. These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as I evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them.

Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as ``slashers'' and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds' legs for fighting. Cockfighting magazines I and websites contain hundreds of advertisements for mail- order knives and gaffs, revealing a thriving interstate market for the weapons used in cockfights.

This is long overdue legislation. Both the Senate and House approved felony animal fighting provisions in their Farm Bills in 2001, but they were stripped out in conference. The Senate included felony animal fighting provisions in the 2003 Health Forest Bill, but they were again dropped in conference. In September 2004, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act was approved by the House Judiciary Committee, but did not reach the floor. In April 2005, the Senate passed a bill nearly identical to the one we are introducing today, when it unanimously approved S. 382. In May 2006, the House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a comprehensive hearing on the House companion bill, H.R. 817, which garnered 324 cosponsors but was not considered on the House floor. The legislative history of this animal fighting felony legislation shows it has broad bipartisan support of more than half the Senate, and it has won unanimous approval on the floor time and time again.

It's time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. With the bird flu threat looming, we can't afford to wait any longer. The economic consequences are staggering--the World Bank projects worldwide losses of $1.5 to $2 trillion. We must be able to say we did all we could to prevent such a pandemic, and this is an obvious, easy and necessary step.

Interstate and international transport of birds for cockfighting is known to have contributed to the spread of avian influenza in Asia and poses a threat to poultry and public health in the United States. According to the World Health Organization and local news reports, at least nine confirmed human fatalities from avian influenza in Thailand and Vietnam may have been contracted through cockfighting activity since the beginning of 2004. Several children are among those who are reported to have died from avian influenza as a result of exposure through cockfighting, including 4-year-old, 6-year-old, and 18-year-old boys in Thailand and a 6-year-old girl in Vietnam.

There have been many news stories focusing on the connection between bird flu and cockfighting. For example, an MSNBC report headlined, ``Cock-fights blamed for Thailand bird flu spread.'' A World Health Organization Asia regional spokesperson interviewed recently on the CBS Evening News described the risk of spreading disease through cockfighting with infected animals as a ``total disaster waiting to happen.''

Because human handling of fighting roosters is a regular occurrence, the opportunity of disease transmission from fighting birds to people is substantial. Fighting-bird handlers come into frequent, sustained contact with their birds during training and during organized fights. It is common practice for handlers to suck saliva and blood from roosters' beaks to help clear their airways and enable them to keep fighting.

Cockfighters frequently move birds across State and foreign borders, bringing them to fight in different locations and risking the spread of infectious diseases. Communications in national

cockfighting magazines and websites have shown that U.S. cockfighters regularly transport their birds to and from other parts of the world, including Asia.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in endorsing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, noted that strengthening current Federal law on the inhumane practice of animal fighting would enhance the agency's ability to safeguard the health of U.S. poultry against deadly diseases such as avian influenza and exotic Newcastle disease (END). The USDA has stated that cockfighting was implicated in an outbreak of END that spread through California and the Southwest in 2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in lost export markets. The costs of an avian influenza outbreak in this country could be much higher--with the Congressional Budget Office estimating losses between 1.5 and 5 percent of GDP ($185 billion to $618 billion).

The National Chicken Council, which represents 95 percent of all U.S. poultry producers and processors, has also endorsed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, expressing concern that avian influenza and other diseases can be spread by the movement of game birds and that the commercial chicken industry remains under considerable threat because it operates amidst a national network of game bird operations.

Avian influenza has not yet crossed the species barrier in this country, as it has in Asia. But we must do all we can to minimize this risk. Establishing a more meaningful deterrent to illegal interstate and foreign movement of animals for fighting purposes is an obvious step we can take to reduce this risk.

Besides those associated with the poultry industry, this legislation has been endorsed by a number of other organization including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Sheriffs' Association, and more than 400 individual sheriffs and police departments covering every State in the country. Those law enforcement agencies recognize that animal fighting often involves the movement of animals across State and foreign borders, so they can't do the job on their own. They need the Federal Government to do its part to help curb this dangerous activity.

Our legislation does not expand the federal government's reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects States' rights in the two States where cockfighting is still allowed, and it protects States' rights the other 48 States--and all 50, for dogfighting--where weak Federal law is compromising their ability to keep animal fighting outside their borders.

The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 382, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, except for one change. The new bill provides for up to three years' jail time, compared to two in S. 382, in order to bring this more in line with penalties for other federal animal cruelty-related felonies. For example, in 1999, Congress authorized imprisonment of up to 5 years for interstate commerce in videos depicting animal cruelty, including animal fighting, P.L. 106- 152, and mandatory jail time of up to 10 years for willfully harming or killing a federal police dog or horse (P.L. 106-254).

With every week, there are new reports of animal fighting busts, as local and state law enforcement struggle to rein in this thriving industry. In my own State of Washington, police arrested 5 people on Christmas Day at a cockfight in Brewster, and about 50 people ran off, according to recent news accounts. Three days later, six more were arrested in Okanogan for promoting cockfighting. And nine people were arrested in Tacoma last spring, where investigators seized methamphetamines, marijuana, weapons, thousands of dollars, and fighting roosters.

It's time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. State and local law enforcement will have a tough law on the books necessary to help them crack down on this interstate industry. I thank my colleagues for their support, and look forward to working with them to finally enacting this common-sense measure into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues, Senators Specter and Ensign, in reintroducing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this important bill finally become the law of the land.

There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs.

It's all done for ``entertainment'' and illegal gambling. Children are sometimes brought to these spectacles, and the fights are frequently accompanied by illegal drug trafficking and acts of human violence. In 2006, nine murders related to animal fighting occurred across the country.

Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a ``cost of doing business'' by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide. These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as I evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them.

Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as ``slashers'' and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds' legs for fighting. Cockfighting magazines I and websites contain hundreds of advertisements for mail- order knives and gaffs, revealing a thriving interstate market for the weapons used in cockfights.

This is long overdue legislation. Both the Senate and House approved felony animal fighting provisions in their Farm Bills in 2001, but they were stripped out in conference. The Senate included felony animal fighting provisions in the 2003 Health Forest Bill, but they were again dropped in conference. In September 2004, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act was approved by the House Judiciary Committee, but did not reach the floor. In April 2005, the Senate passed a bill nearly identical to the one we are introducing today, when it unanimously approved S. 382. In May 2006, the House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a comprehensive hearing on the House companion bill, H.R. 817, which garnered 324 cosponsors but was not considered on the House floor. The legislative history of this animal fighting felony legislation shows it has broad bipartisan support of more than half the Senate, and it has won unanimous approval on the floor time and time again.

It's time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. With the bird flu threat looming, we can't afford to wait any longer. The economic consequences are staggering--the World Bank projects worldwide losses of $1.5 to $2 trillion. We must be able to say we did all we could to prevent such a pandemic, and this is an obvious, easy and necessary step.

Interstate and international transport of birds for cockfighting is known to have contributed to the spread of avian influenza in Asia and poses a threat to poultry and public health in the United States. According to the World Health Organization and local news reports, at least nine confirmed human fatalities from avian influenza in Thailand and Vietnam may have been contracted through cockfighting activity since the beginning of 2004. Several children are among those who are reported to have died from avian influenza as a result of exposure through cockfighting, including 4-year-old, 6-year-old, and 18-year-old boys in Thailand and a 6-year-old girl in Vietnam.

There have been many news stories focusing on the connection between bird flu and cockfighting. For example, an MSNBC report headlined, ``Cock-fights blamed for Thailand bird flu spread.'' A World Health Organization Asia regional spokesperson interviewed recently on the CBS Evening News described the risk of spreading disease through cockfighting with infected animals as a ``total disaster waiting to happen.''

Because human handling of fighting roosters is a regular occurrence, the opportunity of disease transmission from fighting birds to people is substantial. Fighting-bird handlers come into frequent, sustained contact with their birds during training and during organized fights. It is common practice for handlers to suck saliva and blood from roosters' beaks to help clear their airways and enable them to keep fighting.

Cockfighters frequently move birds across State and foreign borders, bringing them to fight in different locations and risking the spread of infectious diseases. Communications in national

cockfighting magazines and websites have shown that U.S. cockfighters regularly transport their birds to and from other parts of the world, including Asia.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in endorsing the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, noted that strengthening current Federal law on the inhumane practice of animal fighting would enhance the agency's ability to safeguard the health of U.S. poultry against deadly diseases such as avian influenza and exotic Newcastle disease (END). The USDA has stated that cockfighting was implicated in an outbreak of END that spread through California and the Southwest in 2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in lost export markets. The costs of an avian influenza outbreak in this country could be much higher--with the Congressional Budget Office estimating losses between 1.5 and 5 percent of GDP ($185 billion to $618 billion).

The National Chicken Council, which represents 95 percent of all U.S. poultry producers and processors, has also endorsed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, expressing concern that avian influenza and other diseases can be spread by the movement of game birds and that the commercial chicken industry remains under considerable threat because it operates amidst a national network of game bird operations.

Avian influenza has not yet crossed the species barrier in this country, as it has in Asia. But we must do all we can to minimize this risk. Establishing a more meaningful deterrent to illegal interstate and foreign movement of animals for fighting purposes is an obvious step we can take to reduce this risk.

Besides those associated with the poultry industry, this legislation has been endorsed by a number of other organization including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Sheriffs' Association, and more than 400 individual sheriffs and police departments covering every State in the country. Those law enforcement agencies recognize that animal fighting often involves the movement of animals across State and foreign borders, so they can't do the job on their own. They need the Federal Government to do its part to help curb this dangerous activity.

Our legislation does not expand the federal government's reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects States' rights in the two States where cockfighting is still allowed, and it protects States' rights the other 48 States--and all 50, for dogfighting--where weak Federal law is compromising their ability to keep animal fighting outside their borders.

The bill we introduce today is identical to S. 382, which passed the Senate unanimously in the last Congress, except for one change. The new bill provides for up to three years' jail time, compared to two in S. 382, in order to bring this more in line with penalties for other federal animal cruelty-related felonies. For example, in 1999, Congress authorized imprisonment of up to 5 years for interstate commerce in videos depicting animal cruelty, including animal fighting, P.L. 106- 152, and mandatory jail time of up to 10 years for willfully harming or killing a federal police dog or horse (P.L. 106-254).

With every week, there are new reports of animal fighting busts, as local and state law enforcement struggle to rein in this thriving industry. In my own State of Washington, police arrested 5 people on Christmas Day at a cockfight in Brewster, and about 50 people ran off, according to recent news accounts. Three days later, six more were arrested in Okanogan for promoting cockfighting. And nine people were arrested in Tacoma last spring, where investigators seized methamphetamines, marijuana, weapons, thousands of dollars, and fighting roosters.

It's time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. State and local law enforcement will have a tough law on the books necessary to help them crack down on this interstate industry. I thank my colleagues for their support, and look forward to working with them to finally enacting this common-sense measure into law.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to discuss a critically important issue to Washington's farmers and ranchers--disaster assistance.

I support the agriculture disaster assistance legislation that is before us here on the floor and am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill.

Washington's agriculture economy is supported by small and medium- sized family farms. Our farmers are a key economic engine for the state, producing more than 300 different commodities on 15.3 million acres valued at over $6.4 billion every year. And in our state, agriculture alone supports more than 300,000 good paying jobs.

Washington's farm families understand hardship. They understand that when you are in the business of farming, you have good years and you have bad years.

Recent years have been particularly hard for them. Many are struggling just to make ends meet as they face low commodity prices, an influx of commodities grown abroad, and high fuel and fertilizer prices stemming from the hurricane disasters of last year.

Unfortunately, in recent years, many producers have also had to cope with crops lost to adverse weather. Over the last three crop years, inclement weather, wildfires, and flooding have exacerbated the already difficult challenges farmers in my state face.

In 2004, 32 of Washington state's 39 counties received disaster declarations. In 2005, it was 13 counties.

So far this year, 24 counties in the State have received disaster declarations.

Once assessments have been completed on the damages sustained from recent flooding throughout Puget Sound and across the Olympic Peninsula, I am confident even more counties will receive declarations.

This year many producers lost their crops or had their crops severely damaged due to adverse weather. Others lost livestock or had herds displaced due to wildfires.

This summer, I visited with farmers in central Washington after the region sustained significant crop losses from hail, wind, and rain in June and July.

I saw firsthand the damage that many of Washington's apple, pear, and cherry orchards incurred. I saw the fruit that was no longer salvageable. I saw the losses that these orchards sustained.

Individual orchards throughout much of the tree fruit-growing regions in north central Washington state--in counties like Chelan, Douglas and Okanogan--lost significant portions of their crop. Some farms were decimated by the storms and lost their entire harvest.

These losses threaten the continued viability of many of these family farms and orchards.

The losses also affect the rural communities and economies these farms help support. Agriculture is the primary, and in some cases the only, economic driver in many rural communities throughout Washington state.

Packing houses, processors, dusters, shippers and other small businesses depend on the harvest almost as much as the producers themselves. Many of these businesses had to lay off hundreds of workers this year because there simply was no fruit to pick or pack.

The agriculture disaster legislation currently before the Senate contains important provisions that will provide desperately needed relief for our farmers and ranchers as they begin to recover during this difficult time. It also contains economic assistance grants to help the small businesses that support our farming communities.

We must act now to provide assistance and ensure the continued viability of American farmers and farm families who lost their crop to disaster. Without it, many will not survive.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in making a commitment to help our farm families and the communities in which they live by providing them the assistance they desperately need.

Voting for the Conrad amendment is to vote for funding that will come to your state and help your farmers stay viable. I urge my colleagues to support the Conrad amendment.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007.

Since 9/11, we have made significant progress in bolstering the defense of our Nation against terrorism. Today, Americans are safer than they were just 5 years ago. However, as we learned from the recently released National Security Estimate, the threat of terrorism continues.

As a border State and a major thoroughfare for trade, Washington State faces incredible security challenges. Along our northern border, official checkpoints are separated by miles of vast, rural and rugged terrain

The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma make up the Nation's third largest container center. Puget Sound is home to America's largest ferry system, transporting more than 26 million passengers and 11 million vehicles annually throughout the area.

The Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 provides vital resources to build on the progress we have made to make our Nation more secure and citizens safer.

It contains specific provisions that I am very proud to have worked on--provisions that I believe make a strong bill even stronger.

I will speak about those provisions in just a moment, but first, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the steadfast leadership and stalwart dedication of the bill's managers, Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd.

This bill recognizes that as a Nation, we still need to make serious investments in our National security.

That is why we're adding significant resources--more than $21 billion--to better secure our borders.

This includes $2.2 billion to add 1,500 agents to monitor and apprehend criminals--criminal or people crossing the border--and $1.4 billion for detention facilities, including nearly 7,000 additional detention beds to end our failed ``catch and release'' policy.

Using cutting edge technology is critical to securing our 4,000-mile- long northern border. With vast, rural and rugged terrain, physical barriers provide limited benefits along much of the northern border.

The right tools can provide critical intelligence about areas that have previously gone unsecured for so long.

This legislation includes a provision, which I offered with Senator Baucus, directing the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Federal Aviation Administration to test the use of unmanned aerial vehicles on the northern border.

UAVs with extended range can conduct prolonged surveillance sweeps over remote border areas, relaying information to border agents on the ground.

This will modernize our patrol capabilities and enable us to reach hundreds of miles of previously unguarded border.

It is time to get serious, smart and practical by using the best proven resources out there.

I have also sponsored a provision included in this legislation directing the Department of Homeland Security and State Department to work with Canadian officials and State and local first responders to identify border security challenges--including interoperable communications--in preparation for the 2010 Olympics.

Lastly, I was proud to join Senator Feinstein to secure a provision criminalizing the construction of smuggling tunnels under our borders and putting into law stiff penalties for anyone building or using such tunnels.

In July 2005, we discovered a smuggling tunnel between Canada and Washington State. It had been used to traffic drugs, but it's all too clear that tunnels could just as easily be exploited by terrorists to enter undetected into our country.

The legislation before us also provides more than $4.3 billion to improve the security of our ports and the global supply chain.

This includes: More than $2 billion to the Coast Guard; $210 million in port security grants; $420 million for radiation and gamma ray inspection equipment for scanning cargo containers; and nearly $200 million to screen cargo containers at foreign ports and collaborate with private entities to enhance supply chain security.

Focusing on security where cargo is loaded abroad, at the point of origin, is vital to achieving security for our ports here at home.

I am proud to have cosponsored a provision with Senators Coleman and Schumer, included in this legislation, which directs the Department of Homeland Security to test a new integrated container inspection system at three foreign ports.

This technology has already shown promise at the Port of Hong Kong.

And I believe that testing this system is the next important step to move us toward 100 percent screening of containers.

From our borders to our ports, this legislation also represents a significant investment in the security of our transportation systems.

In light of the foiled terrorist operation in the U.K. on August 10, I remain especially concerned about aviation security.

As we all now know, a network of terrorist cells planned to down as many as 10 U.S. airliners by smuggling liquid explosives onto flights.

The foiled plot provides a stark reminder of the serious gaps which continue to impede our efforts to secure the commercial airline industry.

In 1994, we learned the dangers of our inability to screen passengers for liquid chemicals that could be combined to create an improvised explosive device, when Ramzi Yousef successfully bombed Philippines Airline flight 434. In 1995 they uncovered the infamous ``Bojinka'' plot in Manila.

Yet more than 10 years later, we still have not developed a technology that can be deployed in airports to screen passengers for these substances.

To fix this, we need to make a strong investment in research and development.

The Senate version of this legislation--which passed before the August U.K. terrorist threat--had only $5 million slated for research and development of explosive countermeasures, under the Science and Technology directorate at the Department of Homeland Security.

After the Senate returned from August recess, I wrote to Chairman Gregg requesting that he work in conference to increase funding for explosive detection research under the Science and Technology directorate.

The conference report before us today includes nearly $87 million in explosives research funding and I want to thank Senator Gregg for working in conference to accommodate this request.

The explosives detection problem is both urgent and technically challenging. Passenger screening technology must be efficient, reliable, and effective.

The latest threats make it clear that we need to accelerate our work to find innovative solutions to evolving challenges.

We must be smart and tough in our fight against global terrorism. Our first priority must be ensuring that Americans are safe.

We have come a long way since 9/11. We have worked hard and made progress and we are safer today.

But it is clear: We need to do more to stop terrorists and their schemes.

We can't let down our guard--at our borders, at our ports, on our passenger planes.

The legislation before us today builds on progress we have made and delivers strong and serious investments so we can do even more.

Americans deserve to know that we are doing everything we can to secure our country and keep them safe.

Again, I want to thank the managers of this bill for their efforts. I look forward to working with them as we continue fighting to secure our Nation.