Floor Statements

I move to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3548.

Mr. President, I know this Nation is in a fiscal crisis. Anybody who is paying attention to the details understands that. We have to get serious about deficit reduction. I believe that in order to do so, we have to look at the full picture. We can't just look at discretionary spending.

I thank the President for saying he wants to freeze discretionary spending. It is going to be an unpopular decision, but we need to start taking steps like that. I also thank Senators Sessions and McCaskill because they have offered an amendment that is going to be voted on in a few minutes that freezes discretionary spending and puts a cap on it. It is for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. I voted for that on a couple occasions and still support the concept.

But in order for us to get serious about getting our fiscal house in order, we have to put everything on the table. That is the bottom line. When we do the fiscally responsible thing, it is going to be hard. It is going to be difficult politically. It will take determination and political will. But we have to put everything on the table.

The multiyear discretionary spending caps were a key part of the 1990, 1993, and 1997 deficit-reduction packages. However, one of the differences in those packages and what Senators Sessions and McCaskill are offering today is those deficit-reduction packages looked at all spending, mandatory and discretionary, as well as revenues. That is what my amendment, the Reid-Pryor amendment we will also vote on this afternoon, does. It puts everything--almost everything on the table.

We have to get serious about fiscal discipline and restoring fiscal order in the United States. There is a story in yesterday's New York Times--I am sure it was widely reported--that Moody's is considering downgrading our bond rating from AAA down to something lower because of the enormous national debt we have.

By establishing limits only on discretionary funding sources, we greatly reduce the likelihood of any bipartisan agreement we can make in this Chamber to fix our long-term deficits and long-term debt problem. I think for us to fix this and to get our fiscal house where it needs to be, we have to approach this in a bipartisan way. My concern is, if we just do discretionary spending, we will never get to a bipartisan agreement.

The other thing about this: If the Reid-Pryor amendment were adopted today, I think the markets would like it. I think Wall Street and the global markets and all these folks such as Moody's and all these other people who are watching would see this as a very positive signal and it would help the U.S. economy in many ways beyond just the pure numbers in the budget.

I trust the members of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. I trust they will provide very viable options and solutions. I look forward to their hearings and all of their suggestions as they go through this year and try to address some of the fiscal challenges we have.

The Senate has six Members on this commission: Senators Baucus, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, and Gregg. All of these people bring great experience. They all bring to the commission great depth of knowledge on these issues. I am afraid if we do the cap on discretionary spending, as we talked about before, it might actually serve to undermine the commission's very challenging work.

I have a chart here that lays out a few things. This actually comes from CQ Today, from Tuesday, February 2, so it is a little more than a month old. But it paints a couple of pictures that I think we need to emphasize today as we compare these two amendments.

The first picture shows these pie charts. I do not know if the cameras can pick these up for the folks back home, but, as shown on these two pie charts these are the 2011 revenue estimates and the 2011 proposed outlays.

One thing that I think is critically important is that when we look at the Sessions-McCaskill amendment--you can see this purple slice of the pie right here. You can see it is much less than half of the Federal budget. You can see that very easily. But in the fine print here--this is discretionary spending--that is nondefense and national defense right there. Of course, they are carving out for national defense. So my guess is, they are only talking about, I will guess, 20 percent of the Federal budget. I am not quite sure how much. So they are trying to fix all of our problem with just about 20 percent of the budget.

What our proposal does is it actually includes almost everything in this pie, instead of saying 20 percent, probably 80 percent, 85 percent, 90 percent of the Federal budget will be included in trying to address the fiscal challenges we have.

There is another thing I want to point out on this chart. It has been around a long time. I have seen it in many publications. On this chart, you can see our deficit spending, starting with the Jimmy Carter administration, going through the Reagan years, the George Bush years, the Clinton years, the George W. Bush years, and the Obama years. You will see that, of course, the Obama years are mostly projections.

But what you see in these purple lines, all down here--under zero-- those are our deficits. Then they actually go up during the Clinton years above zero. We go into surplus spending for the first time in a long time, paying off national debt, trying to be fiscally responsible, making tough choices. Not everybody was happy about that. We were trying to do that. Then you see what happened after 2000, where our numbers plummeted.

This yellow line--that maybe is hard to pick up on television--is the percentage of GDP. But, nonetheless, you see on this chart a sharp dropoff, and then you see this other sharp dropoff. So we have to understand, when this President came into office, President Obama, he did inherit a lot of problems, a lot of fiscal problems. But it is also because of the recession, because of the near global economic collapse, because of two wars and just because of some of these fiscal policies of the previous administration and because of the stimulus and because of some of his priorities. But you see the numbers going way down.

To President Obama's credit, he is moving the purple lines back up, and that is great. But it is not enough. It is not enough. We need to move these lines on up here, and we need to get above zero. We have to get back to surpluses in this government so we can

pay off the national debt, and do this before our children and our grandchildren are stuck with us living beyond our means.

I think that is the bottom line. I think the Reid-Pryor amendment is the amendment that does that. We can talk about how we have an annual deficit this year of--I think it is $1.2 trillion. I have forgotten the number. We can talk about the national debt of--I think it is $13 trillion, and growing every single year. We have to get that turned around. We are on an unsustainable course. We have heard the chairman of the Budget Committee. We have heard the ranking member of the Budget Committee. We have heard people who care about this issue say time and again: We are on an unsustainable course.

I would ask my colleagues to look at the Reid-Pryor amendment. In some ways, it is structured like what Senator Sessions and Senator McCaskill have offered. Again, I voted for previous versions of that. They changed it a little bit this time. But I think the greatest liability for the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is it does not take in the whole picture. Like the pie chart, it takes in a little bit of this pie chart but not the whole thing.

If we are going to get serious--get serious--about fixing our fiscal equation, we have to put everything on the table. That is discretionary spending, mandatory spending, as well as revenues. We have to put it all on the table, and we have to work through this together, hopefully in a very bipartisan way.

I do not think we can fix this overnight. Even if our amendment were to pass this evening, it does not mean we are out of the woods yet. What it does is set the table for the deficit commission and others in future Congresses to come in and do the things we need to do and get us back where we need to be.

The last point I want to make about this chart right here is, if you look at this purple line, this chart is basically a graph of political courage. That is what this is. Because the easiest thing in the world for a politician to do--the easiest thing for a politician to do--is to cut taxes and raise spending. That is exactly what you see on this chart. You see tax cuts coming in at various times, and you see spending going up at various times. These purple numbers get way out of balance when Congress and the White House take the easy way out, and that is exactly what you see on this chart.

That is why we are in this situation today. It is not one President's fault. I do not want to blame it all on this President or on the previous President. This has been going on for a long time. It is not one Congress's fault. It has been going on for a long time. But we have to have the political will to change the way we do things around here.

I hope tonight will be a very important step in that process. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at the Reid-Pryor amendment that contains all three fixes--and that is discretionary spending, mandatory spending, as well as revenues--and try to get this passed tonight and get us moving in the right direction.

I say to the chairman, I think we are waiting on Senator Inouye. So until he gets here, all I wish to say is, what the Pryor amendment does is to freeze all discretionary spending caps at the levels proposed by President Obama for fiscal year 2011. It freezes all discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 at 40 percent of the difference between President Obama's budget proposal and last year's budget resolution. The reason we do that is because Senator Sessions and Senator McCaskill used last year's budget numbers, and it may be fair under the circumstances this year. We are splitting the difference there.

The third thing is that these two freezes will reduce discretionary spending by at least $77 billion over 3 years-- reduce discretionary spending by $77 billion over 3 years--a pretty substantial cut.

When we talk about discretionary spending, we are talking about mostly the popular programs the government has. It may be things such as auto safety. It may be things such as child product safety. It may be things such as the Federal Trade Commission and some of the oversight they have to keep consumers safe. It could be the EPA. There are a lot of things--clean drinking water, clean air. That is what we are talking about when we talk about discretionary spending. So we are doing cuts there. Those are going to hurt. Again, people are not going to be happy about that.

It also requires the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to find at least an additional $77 billion of deficit reductions over the 3 years to close the gap between the projected revenues and entitlement spending. It basically says they have to find some spending cuts as they do their work.

It also requires Congress to enact the debt commission's recommendations by January 2, 2011, for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 discretionary spending caps to go into effect. It has a sense of the Senate that the total amount of deficit reduction by the debt commission shall be at least equal to the reductions in discretionary spending.

One of the differences between the Reid-Pryor amendment and the Sessions-McCaskill amendment is theirs is just about spending. And listen, spending is important, and that is half of the equation. We are spending too much money, and I recognize that, a lot of other people recognize that. I know a lot of people in Arkansas recognize that. But that is only half the equation. The other half is how much we are taking in, and can we do better and smarter all around the board and put everything on the table to try to fix this.

The real problem we face, in my view, is not spending alone but it is the spending that is leading to these enormous deficits every year and this enormous national debt. So I think our approach is more comprehensive. I think it is fairer. I hope many of my colleagues, once they see the language of the legislation, will consider voting for it.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Judge Mary Ann Gunn for her personal commitment and innovative approach to public service in northwest Arkansas. Judge Gunn, who serves on the Washington County Circuit Court, received the 2009 FBI Director's Community Leadership Award.

The award, presented on behalf of the Director of the FBI, was established in 1990 to recognize individuals and organizations for their efforts in combating terrorism, drugs, and violence in America. In addition to her duties as a circuit judge, Judge Gunn voluntarily serves as a judge for the Washington and Madison County Drug Court, in Arkansas. Since 2000, the drug court has accepted first-time, nonviolent drug offenders into a nine month program of intensive counseling and close supervision. When offenders successfully complete the program, their criminal records are cleared of the drug offense.

Judge Gunn's courtroom is one of the most successful in the nation. Her drug court is regularly televised in Washington and Madison Counties, and is an excellent example of how the community, the courts, and law enforcement work together to reduce crime. In addition, she has held drug court sessions in school gymnasiums to show students just where drug use can lead. According to the FBI, Judge Gunn manages ``one of the most effective public services available in Northwest Arkansas.''

We congratulate Judge Mary Ann Gunn on her personal accomplishment, and we thank her for her commitment to reducing crime and protecting citizens of Arkansas.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I come to the floor today to talk about SGT Vincent L.C. Owens from Fort Smith, AR. His life of service to our Nation is a shining example of a true American patriot.

Sergeant Owens lost his life while serving in eastern Afghanistan after his transport vehicle came under fire by enemy forces. He was a part of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regimen, 101st Airborne Division in Fort Campbell, KY. Previously, Sergeant Owens spent 14 months in Iraq serving with the A Battery, 1st Battalion, 56th Air Defense Artillery from Fort Bliss, TX. Sergeant Owens served both tours with honor and distinction, earning numerous medals and awards, including two Army Commendation Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, a Valorous Unit Award, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Combat Action Badge.

An ardent athlete, talented student, and motorcycle aficionado, Sergeant Owens lived his life of only 21 years with passion and dedication. Those who knew him describe him as a kind and easygoing man who always had high standards for himself. He was the oldest of five children. He had been married to his wife Kaitlyn for just 6 weeks. Despite being a newlywed, Sergeant Owens did not hesitate to answer the call of duty.

Sergeant Owens' family and friends said he joined the Army out of a sense of patriotism and took pride in serving his Nation. He devoted his life to defending America and gave the ultimate sacrifice for the country he so deeply loved.

After this tremendous loss, Fort Smith, AK, is in the process of waving off 200 airmen from the Air National Guard's 188th Fighter Wing as they head to Afghanistan, joining about 75 members of the 188th already serving there. This will be the unit's first deployment with the A-10 Thunderbolt II--also known as ``The Warthog''--since the 188th received the aircraft in April of 2007. Also, many of these guardsmen are part of the agribusiness development team. This unit will teach Afghans better farming, crop storage, and marketing practices in an effort to draw them away from poppy production and build a strong economy. These Arkansans are picking up Sergeant Owens' mantle in the fight to create a more secure and stable Afghanistan and together their efforts will endure.

Today, I join all Arkansans in lifting up Sergeant Owens' wife Kaitlyn, his parents Sheila and Keith and his siblings and friends and extended family and community of Fort Smith during this very difficult time. Sergeant Owens may be gone, but his courage, valor, and patriotism will never be forgotten.

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

Madam President, today I pay tribute to the professional career and community achievements of Dr. Sandra Diane ``Sandi'' Sanders of Fort Smith, AR.

Dr. Sandi Sanders, who did her master's and doctoral work at the University of Arkansas, has been an educator and involved in the Fort Smith community all of her life. She played a major role in the development of the former Westark Community College which today is the University of Arkansas-Fort Smith, UAFS. She served in many different roles including provost, chief academic officer, senior vice chancellor and chief of staff, and most recently interim chancellor. Her leadership has guided UAFS to be one of the premiere community colleges in Arkansas and across the Nation.

She has served and continues to serve in the community in many different roles such as former director of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, board of directors at Arvest Bank of Fort Smith, United Way Women's Leadership Giving Steering Committee, former campaign chairman for the 2005 United Way of Fort Smith, and many other activities. She is currently serving as project director for the U.S. Marshall Museum being built in Fort Smith. Her dedication to her community is shown through the numerous hours devoted to making her society a better place for her neighbors and for future residents.

Dr. Sanders has brought great leadership and outstanding integrity to the Arkansas community. Her leadership has been and will continue to be critical in an ever-changing environment. The work of educating young people should not be taken lightly and I am proud to have Dr. Sanders teaching and advising students in our great State.

Madam President, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the great contributions Dr. Sandi Sanders has made to Arkansas and the United States of America.

Mr. President, Holmes had Watson, Mat Dillon had Chester, even Andy had Barney; for the past 20 years, I have had Bob Russell. Bob has long been a trusted friend, and for the past 7 years he has been my great chief of staff, providing valuable counsel, know-how, and humor. Bob is headed to the private sector, but I could not let him leave without thanking him for his public service in the Arkansas attorney general's office and in the Senate.

Bob was instrumental in assembling an exceptional team of talented aides, many of whom are in the gallery today. Over the last 7 years, he led that team as we steered a number of legislative initiatives to success, including legislation to improve children's safety, help military families, and strengthen Arkansas communities. None of these accomplishments would have been possible without Bob's hard work, integrity, and deliberation.

Bob believes in the ``do right'' rule. He came to the Senate to get these done for Arkansas, and when he realized that partisanship was getting in the way, he took action. Along with Tom Ingram, former chief of staff to Lamar Alexander, he formed the bipartisan chiefs of staff group. This informal group meets regularly to facilitate working relationships across the aisle. These friendships translate into solutions instead of barriers.

The so-called Gang of 14 is a prime example, where Bob and Tom recognized early on that common ground on Federal judges was more favorable than Senate gridlock. Just a few weeks later, 14 Senators, including myself, struck a deal that enabled the Senate to move forward with the judicial nominations and conduct regular business. That is the type of unseen influence Bob Russell has had on this place for the last 7 years.

I love Bob and I trust him. He is a good family man and he is a good Southern Baptist. On many Mondays, we would come in and say: Tell me about your sermon on Sunday. I will miss his presence and his insights. He has been a good mentor and adviser to me and to many on my staff and has made many lifelong friendships here in Washington. He is more than a chief of staff, he is my friend.

Frank Broyles is an Arkansas hero, well-loved for coaching the Razorbacks to a national championship and famous for developing assistant coaches. One of his players was Jimmy Johnson, who would later coach as an assistant at Arkansas under Broyles. It is tough to let an assistant coach go, but when he is that good, he deserves to go out and do great things on his own. I feel the same way about Bob, especially since I know that Ecclesiastes says:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every

matter under Heaven.

Johnson went on to win a national championship and two Super Bowls. I know Bob will go on to a highly successful career in his own right.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cardin to introduce the Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 which will authorize a program of scientific investigation by the Food and Drug Administration on nanotechnology-based medical and health products.

Nanotechnology holds great promise to revolutionize the development of new medicines, drug delivery, and orthopedic implants while holding down the cost of health care. However, Congress and the FDA must assure the

public that nanotechnology-based products are both safe and efficacious. The Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 will enable the FDA to properly study how nanomaterials are absorbed by the human body, how nanomaterials designed to carry cancer fighting drugs target and kill tumors, and how nanoscale texturing of bone implants can make a stronger joint and reduce the threat of infection.

Nanotechnology, or the manipulation of material at dimensions between 1 and 100 nanometers, is a challenging scientific area. To put this size scale in perspective, a human hair is 80,000 nanometers thick.

Nanomaterials have different chemical, physical, electrical and biological characteristics than when used as larger, bulk materials. For example, nanoscale silver has exhibited unique antibacterial properties for treating infections and wounds. Nanomaterials have a much larger ratio of surface area to mass than ordinary materials do. It is at the surface of materials that biological and chemical reactions take place, and so we would expect nanomaterials to be more reactive than bulk materials.

The novel characteristics of nanomaterials mean that risk assessments developed for ordinary materials may be of limited use in determining the health and public safety of products based on nanotechnology.

The FDA needs the tools and resources to assure the public that nanotechnology-based medical and health products are safe and effective. The development of a regulatory framework for the use of nanomaterials in drugs, medical devices, and food additives must be based on scientific knowledge and data about each specific technology and product. Without a robust scientific framework there is no way to know what data to collect. More than a dozen material characteristics have been suggested even for relatively simple nanomaterials. Without better scientific knowledge of nanomaterials and their behavior in the human body, we do not know what data to collect and examine.

In 2007, the FDA Nanotechnology Task Force published a report analyzing the FDA's scientific program and regulatory authority for addressing nanotechnology in drugs, medical devices, biologics, and food supplements. A general finding of the report is that nanoscale materials present regulatory challenges similar to those posed by products using other emerging technologies. However, these challenges may be magnified because nanotechnology can be used to make almost any FDA-regulated product. Also, at the nanoscale, the properties of a material relevant to the safety and effectiveness of the FDA-regulated products might change.

The Task Force recommended that the FDA focus on improving its scientific knowledge of nanotechnology to help ensure the agency's regulatory effectiveness, particularly with regard to products not subject to premarket authorization requirements.

The FDA has already reviewed and approved some nanotechnology-based products. In the coming years, they expect a significant increase in the use of nanoscale materials in drugs, devices, biologics, cosmetics, and food. This will require the FDA to devote more of its regulatory attention to nanotechnology based products.

Let me talk for a few minutes about two areas where nanotechnology is already being applied to health care.

The early detection of cancer and multifunctional therapeutics.

The early detection of cancer can result in significant improvement in human health care and reduction in cost. Nanotechnology offers important new tools for detection where existing and more conventional technologies may be reaching their limits. The present obstacle to early detection of cancer lies in the inability of existing tools to detect these molecular level changes directly during early phases in the genesis of a cancer. Nanotechnology can provide smart contrast agents and tools for real time imaging of a single cell and tissues at the nanoscale.

Nanotechnology promises a host of minimally-invasive diagnostic techniques and much research is aimed at ultra-sensitive labeling and detection technologies. In the in vitro area, nanotechnology can help define cancers by molecular signatures denoting processes that reflect fundamental changes in cells and tissues that lead to cancer. Already, investigators have developed novel nanoscale in vitro techniques that can analyze genomic variations across different tumor types and distinguish normal from malignant cells.

In the in vivo area, one of the most pressing needs in clinical oncology is for imaging agents that can identify tumors that are far smaller than is possible with today's technology. Achieving this level of sensitivity requires better targeting of imaging agents and generation of a larger imaging signal, both of which nanoscale devices are capable of accomplishing.

Perhaps the greatest near-term impact of multifunctional therapeutic compounds will come in the area of tumor targeting and cancer therapies. Nanotechnology can be used to develop new methods of drug delivery that better target selected tissues and cells, and to improve on the efficiency of drug activity in the cytoplasm or nucleus. Drug delivery applications will provide a solution to solubility problems, as well as offer intracellular delivery possibilities.

The introduction of nanotechnology to multifunctional therapeutics is at an early stage of development. The delivery of nanoscale multifunctional therapeutics could permit very precise site specific targeting of cancer cells. More sophisticated ``smart'' systems for drug delivery still have to be developed that sense and respond to specific chemical agents and are tailored to each patient. Multifunctional therapeutic devices need to be developed that simultaneously detect, diagnose, treat and monitor response to the therapy. For example, various nanomaterials can be made to link with a drug, a targeting molecule and an imaging agent to seek out cancers and release their payload when required.

The FDA has already begun to devote some resources to the understanding of the human health effects and safety of nanotechnology. It has established a Nanotechnology Core Facility at the FDA's Jefferson Arkansas Laboratories. Combining the expertise of the National Center for Toxicological Research and the Arkansas Research Laboratory, which is part of the FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs, this new Nanotechnology Core Facility will support nanotechnology toxicity studies, develop analytical tools to quantify nanomaterials in complex matrices, and develop procedures for characterizing nanomaterials in FDA-regulated products.

In conclusion, the Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 will provide the FDA the authority necessary to scientifically study the safety and effectiveness of nanotechnology-based drugs, delivery systems, medical devices, orthopedic implants, cosmetics, and food additives regulated by the agency. This bill is a sound investment on the promise of nanotechnology to improve human health and reduce costs in the 21st Century.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cardin to introduce the Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 which will authorize a program of scientific investigation by the Food and Drug Administration on nanotechnology-based medical and health products.

Nanotechnology holds great promise to revolutionize the development of new medicines, drug delivery, and orthopedic implants while holding down the cost of health care. However, Congress and the FDA must assure the

public that nanotechnology-based products are both safe and efficacious. The Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 will enable the FDA to properly study how nanomaterials are absorbed by the human body, how nanomaterials designed to carry cancer fighting drugs target and kill tumors, and how nanoscale texturing of bone implants can make a stronger joint and reduce the threat of infection.

Nanotechnology, or the manipulation of material at dimensions between 1 and 100 nanometers, is a challenging scientific area. To put this size scale in perspective, a human hair is 80,000 nanometers thick.

Nanomaterials have different chemical, physical, electrical and biological characteristics than when used as larger, bulk materials. For example, nanoscale silver has exhibited unique antibacterial properties for treating infections and wounds. Nanomaterials have a much larger ratio of surface area to mass than ordinary materials do. It is at the surface of materials that biological and chemical reactions take place, and so we would expect nanomaterials to be more reactive than bulk materials.

The novel characteristics of nanomaterials mean that risk assessments developed for ordinary materials may be of limited use in determining the health and public safety of products based on nanotechnology.

The FDA needs the tools and resources to assure the public that nanotechnology-based medical and health products are safe and effective. The development of a regulatory framework for the use of nanomaterials in drugs, medical devices, and food additives must be based on scientific knowledge and data about each specific technology and product. Without a robust scientific framework there is no way to know what data to collect. More than a dozen material characteristics have been suggested even for relatively simple nanomaterials. Without better scientific knowledge of nanomaterials and their behavior in the human body, we do not know what data to collect and examine.

In 2007, the FDA Nanotechnology Task Force published a report analyzing the FDA's scientific program and regulatory authority for addressing nanotechnology in drugs, medical devices, biologics, and food supplements. A general finding of the report is that nanoscale materials present regulatory challenges similar to those posed by products using other emerging technologies. However, these challenges may be magnified because nanotechnology can be used to make almost any FDA-regulated product. Also, at the nanoscale, the properties of a material relevant to the safety and effectiveness of the FDA-regulated products might change.

The Task Force recommended that the FDA focus on improving its scientific knowledge of nanotechnology to help ensure the agency's regulatory effectiveness, particularly with regard to products not subject to premarket authorization requirements.

The FDA has already reviewed and approved some nanotechnology-based products. In the coming years, they expect a significant increase in the use of nanoscale materials in drugs, devices, biologics, cosmetics, and food. This will require the FDA to devote more of its regulatory attention to nanotechnology based products.

Let me talk for a few minutes about two areas where nanotechnology is already being applied to health care.

The early detection of cancer and multifunctional therapeutics.

The early detection of cancer can result in significant improvement in human health care and reduction in cost. Nanotechnology offers important new tools for detection where existing and more conventional technologies may be reaching their limits. The present obstacle to early detection of cancer lies in the inability of existing tools to detect these molecular level changes directly during early phases in the genesis of a cancer. Nanotechnology can provide smart contrast agents and tools for real time imaging of a single cell and tissues at the nanoscale.

Nanotechnology promises a host of minimally-invasive diagnostic techniques and much research is aimed at ultra-sensitive labeling and detection technologies. In the in vitro area, nanotechnology can help define cancers by molecular signatures denoting processes that reflect fundamental changes in cells and tissues that lead to cancer. Already, investigators have developed novel nanoscale in vitro techniques that can analyze genomic variations across different tumor types and distinguish normal from malignant cells.

In the in vivo area, one of the most pressing needs in clinical oncology is for imaging agents that can identify tumors that are far smaller than is possible with today's technology. Achieving this level of sensitivity requires better targeting of imaging agents and generation of a larger imaging signal, both of which nanoscale devices are capable of accomplishing.

Perhaps the greatest near-term impact of multifunctional therapeutic compounds will come in the area of tumor targeting and cancer therapies. Nanotechnology can be used to develop new methods of drug delivery that better target selected tissues and cells, and to improve on the efficiency of drug activity in the cytoplasm or nucleus. Drug delivery applications will provide a solution to solubility problems, as well as offer intracellular delivery possibilities.

The introduction of nanotechnology to multifunctional therapeutics is at an early stage of development. The delivery of nanoscale multifunctional therapeutics could permit very precise site specific targeting of cancer cells. More sophisticated ``smart'' systems for drug delivery still have to be developed that sense and respond to specific chemical agents and are tailored to each patient. Multifunctional therapeutic devices need to be developed that simultaneously detect, diagnose, treat and monitor response to the therapy. For example, various nanomaterials can be made to link with a drug, a targeting molecule and an imaging agent to seek out cancers and release their payload when required.

The FDA has already begun to devote some resources to the understanding of the human health effects and safety of nanotechnology. It has established a Nanotechnology Core Facility at the FDA's Jefferson Arkansas Laboratories. Combining the expertise of the National Center for Toxicological Research and the Arkansas Research Laboratory, which is part of the FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs, this new Nanotechnology Core Facility will support nanotechnology toxicity studies, develop analytical tools to quantify nanomaterials in complex matrices, and develop procedures for characterizing nanomaterials in FDA-regulated products.

In conclusion, the Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 will provide the FDA the authority necessary to scientifically study the safety and effectiveness of nanotechnology-based drugs, delivery systems, medical devices, orthopedic implants, cosmetics, and food additives regulated by the agency. This bill is a sound investment on the promise of nanotechnology to improve human health and reduce costs in the 21st Century.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority

leader be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bill and joint resolution today, December 15.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4154 just received from the House and at the desk; that the Baucus substitute amendment be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand the Republican leader will object, so I will withdraw this request.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. Wednesday, December 16; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3590, the health care reform legislation, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with the majority leader controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the second half.

Mr. President, we expect votes tomorrow in relation to the Hutchison motion to commit regarding taxes and implementation and the Sanders amendment regarding a national single-payer system. Senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation to address gaps in our preparedness and ability to respond to widespread infectious disease outbreaks and biological attacks.

The H1N1 outbreak demonstrated to us how investments in pandemic preparedness activities, such as the creation of pandemic influenza strategies, can lessen the effects of a pandemic and improve our response. However, we have learned from the H1N1 pandemic that we still have gaps in our ability to prepare for and respond to these types of events and that state and local entities are uncertain in their abilities to respond to a more severe event.

Apart from shortcomings in government coordination and planning, there is also a glaring deficiency in an important statute that underpins our nation's response to disasters. When a natural disaster such as flooding in Arkansas occurs, local and State government resources can be quickly overextended. When that occurs a governor can request and the President can issue a major disaster declaration, which triggers the maximum amount of resources from the Federal disaster response system.

Sometimes the system works well and other times not as well, but we know for certain that without a disaster declaration and effective Federal intervention a natural disaster can have devastating effects on life, property, and our economy.

Unfortunately, due to a lack of clarification of the definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act, there is no precedent for the President to issue a major disaster declaration when local medical resources are overwhelmed by the exponential spread of life-threatening diseases, or alternatively, a deliberate biological attack by terrorists. The bills that I am introducing today will help to address preparedness shortcomings as well as the deficiency in law.

My first bill, S. 2863, entitled The Emergency Response Act, addresses this shortcoming in law. It will ensure the Federal Government can provide the maximum amount of support to State and local governments by allowing pandemics, acts of terrorism or other man-made disasters to be considered a major disaster under the Stafford Act. This clarification in law will permit the President to issue a major disaster declaration and allow Federal agencies to coordinate their efforts, give technical assistance, give advisory assistance, and work with local authorities and people in the private sector for events such as pandemics, biological attacks or chemical releases.

The second bill, S. 2864, entitled The Defense Against Infectious Disease Act, requires the Federal government to periodically update the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the National Pandemic Implementation plan with the assistance of State, Local and Tribal stakeholders in order to ensure our preparedness plans are up to date and incorporate the latest technologies, medical developments and logistical challenges.

This bill addresses concerns raised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office about both the completeness of these emergency plans and the need for them to be updated. Most Americans may not even know that these emergency plans exist, but they do understand that strong planning is the foundation for effective action. An out-of-date plan is not a plan, and after watching the spread of H1N1 and the missteps in our government's response, Americans can easily imagine what it would be like in the event of an even more serious disease outbreak, and the importance of planning for such an emergency.

This bill will also help address the situation I described previously in which a severe infectious disease outbreak can overwhelm our local medical facilities, many of which have limited resources to handle even their every day needs. To address situations which will over extend local resources, my bill also requires the Federal Government to identify alternative medical care facilities and other resources such as medical equipment, daily supplies and personnel to ensure we know what assets we have to help State and local communities.

The idea here is preparation. We should make the best of the H1N1 outbreak and learn from this experience. That is why I introduced the Emergency Response Act and the Defense Against Infectious Diseases Act. I ask that my colleagues support these bills to ensure that we are prepared for the next pandemic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation to address gaps in our preparedness and ability to respond to widespread infectious disease outbreaks and biological attacks.

The H1N1 outbreak demonstrated to us how investments in pandemic preparedness activities, such as the creation of pandemic influenza strategies, can lessen the effects of a pandemic and improve our response. However, we have learned from the H1N1 pandemic that we still have gaps in our ability to prepare for and respond to these types of events and that state and local entities are uncertain in their abilities to respond to a more severe event.

Apart from shortcomings in government coordination and planning, there is also a glaring deficiency in an important statute that underpins our nation's response to disasters. When a natural disaster such as flooding in Arkansas occurs, local and State government resources can be quickly overextended. When that occurs a governor can request and the President can issue a major disaster declaration, which triggers the maximum amount of resources from the Federal disaster response system.

Sometimes the system works well and other times not as well, but we know for certain that without a disaster declaration and effective Federal intervention a natural disaster can have devastating effects on life, property, and our economy.

Unfortunately, due to a lack of clarification of the definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act, there is no precedent for the President to issue a major disaster declaration when local medical resources are overwhelmed by the exponential spread of life-threatening diseases, or alternatively, a deliberate biological attack by terrorists. The bills that I am introducing today will help to address preparedness shortcomings as well as the deficiency in law.

My first bill, S. 2863, entitled The Emergency Response Act, addresses this shortcoming in law. It will ensure the Federal Government can provide the maximum amount of support to State and local governments by allowing pandemics, acts of terrorism or other man-made disasters to be considered a major disaster under the Stafford Act. This clarification in law will permit the President to issue a major disaster declaration and allow Federal agencies to coordinate their efforts, give technical assistance, give advisory assistance, and work with local authorities and people in the private sector for events such as pandemics, biological attacks or chemical releases.

The second bill, S. 2864, entitled The Defense Against Infectious Disease Act, requires the Federal government to periodically update the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the National Pandemic Implementation plan with the assistance of State, Local and Tribal stakeholders in order to ensure our preparedness plans are up to date and incorporate the latest technologies, medical developments and logistical challenges.

This bill addresses concerns raised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office about both the completeness of these emergency plans and the need for them to be updated. Most Americans may not even know that these emergency plans exist, but they do understand that strong planning is the foundation for effective action. An out-of-date plan is not a plan, and after watching the spread of H1N1 and the missteps in our government's response, Americans can easily imagine what it would be like in the event of an even more serious disease outbreak, and the importance of planning for such an emergency.

This bill will also help address the situation I described previously in which a severe infectious disease outbreak can overwhelm our local medical facilities, many of which have limited resources to handle even their every day needs. To address situations which will over extend local resources, my bill also requires the Federal Government to identify alternative medical care facilities and other resources such as medical equipment, daily supplies and personnel to ensure we know what assets we have to help State and local communities.

The idea here is preparation. We should make the best of the H1N1 outbreak and learn from this experience. That is why I introduced the Emergency Response Act and the Defense Against Infectious Diseases Act. I ask that my colleagues support these bills to ensure that we are prepared for the next pandemic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed in the Record.