A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to provide Federal Government employees with bid protest rights in actions under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Brownback, Clinton, Santorum and Landrieu, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. Mr. President, we believe there is an urgent need to establish a Federal role for targeting research on the impact of media on children. Almost 5 years ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended no television viewing for children under the age of 2. They subsequently recommended limiting all screen time exposure, including television, videos, computer and video games, to 1-2 hours per day for

older children. The Academy based these decisions on their best sense of how to facilitate the healthy development of children. However, not enough research had been conducted in this area to know if these particular recommendations were good advice or not. Five years later, we still have very limited information about the role of media, particularly the role of digital media, in very early development. Why not? None of our Federal agencies are charged with ensuring an ongoing funding base for a coherent research agenda about the role of media in children's lives.

From the cradle to the grave, we now live and develop in a world of media--a world that is increasingly digital, and a world where access is at our fingertips. This emerging digital world is well known to our children, but its effects on their development are not well understood. From ages 2-18, children are spending an average of 5 and a half hours with media each day. For those who are under age 6, 2 hours of exposure to screen media each day is common, even for those who are under age 2. That is about as much time as children under age 6 spend playing outdoors, and it is much more time than they spend reading or being read to by their parents. How does this investment of time affect their development? We have all wondered about the answer to this question.

Take the Columbine incident. After two adolescent boys shot and killed some of their teachers, classmates, and then turned their guns on themselves at Columbine High School, we asked ourselves if media played some role in this tragedy. Did these boys learn to kill in part from playing first-person shooter video games like Doom where they acted as a killer? Were they rehearsing criminal activities when playing this game? We looked to the research community for an answer. In the violence and media area, we had invested in research more so than in any other area, and as a result, we knew more. Therefore, some answers were forthcoming about how this tragedy could have taken place as well as steps that could be taken, such as media education programs, which could prevent similar events from happening in the future. Even so, there is still a considerable amount of speculation about the more complex questions. Why did these particular boys, for example, pull the trigger in real life while others who played Doom confine their aggressive acts to the gaming context?

Consider the national health problem of childhood obesity. Does time spent viewing screens and its accompanying sedentary life styles contribute to childhood obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of advertisements for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that pervade children's television advertisements the culprit? What will happen when pop-up advertisements begin to appear on children's cell phones that specifically target them for the junk food that they like best? The answer to the obesity and media question is also complex. We need more answers.

A recent report linked very early television viewing with later symptoms that are common in children who have attention deficit disorders. Does television viewing cause attention deficits, or do children who have attention deficits find television viewing experiences more engaging than kids who don't have attention problems? Or do parents whose children have difficulty sustaining attention let them watch more television to encourage more sitting and less hyperactive behavior? How will Internet experiences, particularly those where children move rapidly across different windows, influence attention patterns and attention problems? Once again, we don't know the answer.

Many of us find that our children are becoming increasingly materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and even the ``good life'' experienced by media characters partly explain materialistic attitudes? We're not sure. What will happen when our children will be able to click on their television screen and go directly to sites that advertise the products that they see in those favorite programs?

Many of us believe that time spent with computers is good for our children, teaching them the skills that they will need for success in the 21st century. Are we right?

How is time spent with computers different from time spent with television? Is the time spent with media the key to success, or is the content?

The questions about how media affect the development of our children are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our knowledge base limit our ability to make informed decisions about media policy.

We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media violence affects childhood aggression. We have passed legislation to maximize the documented benefits of exposure to educational media, such as the Children's Television Act which requires broadcasters to provide educational and informational television programs for children. We acted to protect our children from harm by passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act which provides safeguards from commercial exploitation for our youth as they explore the Internet, a popular pastime for them. But there are many areas where our understanding is preliminary at best, particularly those that involve the effect of our newer digital media. For example, we have passed numerous laws about sexually explicit content, such as the Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act to shield children from exposure to online content that is deemed harmful to minors. However, we know very little about how this kind of exposure affects children's development or about how to prevent children from falling prey to adult strangers who approach them online.

In order to ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, the behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions we make should be based on objective behavioral, social, and scientific research. Yet no Federal research agency has responsibility for overseeing and setting a coherent media research agenda that can guide these policy decisions. Instead, Federal agencies fund media research in a piece meal fashion, resulting in a patch work quilt of findings. We can do better than that.

The bill we are introducing today would remedy this problem. The CAMRA Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by establishing a program on Children and Media within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program of research, to be vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will fund and energize a coherent program of research that illuminates the role of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and behavioral development. The research will cover all forms of electronic media, including television, movies, DVDs, interactive video games, and the Internet and will encourage research with children of all ages-- even babies and toddlers. The bill also calls for a report to Congress about the effectiveness of this research program in filling this void in our knowledge base. In order to accomplish these goals, we are authorizing $90 million dollars to be phased in gradually across the next five years. The cost to our budget is minimal. The benefits to our youth and our nation's families are immeasurable.

Our children live in the information age. Our nation has one of the most powerful and sophisticated information technology systems in the world. While this system entertains us, it is not harmless entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a stake in finding out exactly what that role is. Access to that knowledge requires us to make an investment: an investment in research, an investment in and for our children, an investment in our collective future.

By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that are grounded in a solid knowledge base. We can be proactive, rather than reactive. In so doing, we build a better nation for our youth, and we create a better foundation to guide future media policies about the digital experiences that pervade our children's daily lives.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act. The purpose of the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act is to reform the statutory scheme governing judicial review of immigration removal orders. Currently, we have an absurd situation in which criminal aliens are entitled to

more review and have more opportunities to file frivolous dilatory appeals than non-criminal aliens. The legislation which I am introducing will streamline the process of reviewing final administrative immigration orders, thereby eliminating such unfair results under the current statutory scheme.

In 1961, Congress amended Section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, to specify the circumstances under which final orders of deportation and exclusion could be reviewed in the federal courts. The statute provided that petitions for review in the circuit courts of appeal were the ``sole and exclusive'' procedure for reviewing deportation orders, and that habeas corpus was available only to challenge exclusion orders of the custodial aspects of immigration detention. The jurisprudence was settled that there were no alternative or additional avenues of judicial review of immigration orders beyond those provided in Section 106.

In 1996, seeking to provide for the more efficient and expeditious removal of aliens who commit serious crimes in the United States, Congress attempted to streamline the judicial review of immigration orders against such aliens. Passed by wide, bipartisan margins, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) eliminated judicial review of immigration orders for most criminals. IIRIRA recognized that criminal aliens had already received a full measure of due process in their criminal cases, as well as in their immigration proceedings, and that additional review typically only served to delay their inevitable removal.

However, because the 1996 reforms lacked express language precluding habeas corpus review, the Supreme Court decided in INS v. St. Cyr that habeas review remained available to criminal aliens other than or in addition to the review specified in the INA. Consequently, under current law, criminal aliens may seek habeas review of their deportation orders in district courts and then appeal adverse decisions to the courts of appeals. By contrast, non-criminal aliens are governed by INA Sec. 242, and must appeal directly to the court of appeals without the additional layer of review in the district courts. The result is that criminal aliens who have no claim to relief from deportation file frivolous petitions, causing serious delay in securing final judgment against them. This is a complete perversion of the reforms intended by Congress in 1996, and it must be corrected.

Let me illustrate the extent of the problem. In 1995, just before IIRIRA's enactment, there were 403 immigration habeas petitions filed. In 2003, that number rose to 2,374. Over the same period, the total number of immigration-related cases in federal courts rose from 1,939 to 11,906. This is after Congress passed a law to limit the review for criminal aliens. Clearly, the intent of Congress has been frustrated.

Consistent with the settled principled that petitions for review should be the ``sole and exclusive'' means of judicial review for aliens challenging their removal (as reaffirmed in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b)(9) requiring that all issues pertaining to removal orders be brought to the circuit courts of appeal), the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act streamlines immigration review and protects an alien's right to review by an independent judiciary. It also ensures that even criminal aliens may receive review of pure questions of law and Constitutional claims, as dictated by the Supreme Court in S. Cyr.

With the expanded subject matter jurisdiction in the courts of appeals, the proposed legislation will eliminate the confusing, and indeed inequitable practice of allowing criminal aliens to obtain an additional layer of review through habeas corpus petitions. This legislation is fully consistent with both the Supreme Court's decision in S. Cyr and settled jurisprudence regarding the availability of habeas corpus. These reforms will ensure that aliens will have their day in court, and ensures that the law does not place criminals in a position that is superior to non-criminals. In sum, the Act restores order to the judicial review process in the courts as well as fairness for alien petitioners.

Moreover, the deportation proceedings too often are frustrated by activist judges who place unreasonable burdens on the government to show why a lawfully issued deportation order should be enforced, and who stop the lawful execution of deportation orders even though the aliens have advanced no legal basis to challenge the deportation order. Such activism combined with murkiness in the law have slowed and in some cases halted the government's ability to deport criminal aliens and others who have no right to stay. It is time we clarify the law so that the government can effectively deport those who should be deported.

Often, we hear complaints that the government is not doing enough to protect our borders against illegal entry, and that we need to do more to catch and deport the illegal aliens who have made their way into our country. Without question, sealing our borders and arresting every illegal alien is a monumental undertaking. But with this legislation, we can easily address the immediate problem of removing the illegal aliens that we already have in the system, and sometimes even in our custody.

I want to emphasize that the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act does not abridge an immigration detainee's right to challenge actual, physical custody through a habeas corpus petition. It is not my intention at all to take away the habeas petition as a legitimate way to challenge physical custody. Instead, this legislation narrowly applies to judicial review of final agency orders of removal, which involve legal issues that should be reviewed through a petition for review by the court of appeals.

I further want to emphasize that nothing in this legislation deprives deportable aliens of all the procedural and substantive due process that the Supreme Court said was required. It simply bars unnecessary delays through collateral attacks. In fact, the only ones who are affected by this bill are criminals who have had their review, but who want to avoid enforcement of their deportation orders by initiating dilatory, collateral attacks, and perhaps their lawyers who charge thousands of dollars to file petitions that they know to be without merit.

In sum, the legislation which I am introducing today will expand the subject matter jurisdiction of the court of appeals so that criminal aliens will receive the judicial review to which they are entitled according to St. Cyr. At the same time, the legislation will streamline the process so that we no longer have the absurd result of criminals getting more protection than non-criminals. The legislation also will reduce the possibility that criminals who are without any statutory relief from deportation can abuse the system by filing frivolous petitions solely to delay their eventual removal from the United States. Furthermore, the legislation will properly place the burden of showing eligibility for relief from deportation upon the applicants for relief, and will clarify our statute so that the government can more effectively execute deportation orders without encountering the obstacles that ambiguous statutes have created.

I ask for the support of my colleagues in passing the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act, which will restore procedural fairness for all immigrants, but will significantly reduce the backlog in our judicial system created by frivolous and dilatory appeals.

Mr. President, competitive sourcing is the process by which the Federal Government conducts a competition to compare the

cost of obtaining a needed commercial service from a private sector contractor rather than from Federal employees. Properly conducted, competitive sourcing can be an effective tool to achieve cost savings. Poorly utilized, however, it can increase costs and hurt the morale of the Federal workforce.

The current guidelines under which agencies conduct these competitions are contained in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-76 (A-76). To ensure that we maximize the benefit and minimize the cost of competitive sourcing, A-76 competition must be conducted in a carefully crafted manner. The rules under which they take place must be fair, objective, transparent, and efficient. In one particular regard, I believe the current rules fail to meet these criteria.

Specifically, they do not allow Federal employees to protest the agency's decisions in an A-76 competition beyond the agency's own internal review processes to the General Accounting Office (GAO). Congress has vested in the GAO the jurisdiction to hear and render opinions in protests of agency acquisition decisions generally. Private sector contractors, in contrast to federal employees, have standing to protest agency procurement decisions, including those in A-76 competitions, before GAO. Today, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, I am introducing legislation to correct this imbalance by providing Federal employees with standing to protest A-76 decisions to GAO.

The current situation does not arise from any conscious policy decision of Congress, GAO or OMB. Rather, it occurs because the Federal statute that confers protest jurisdiction upon GAO, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 or ``CICA,'' was not drafted to address the unique nature of A-76 competitions, in particular, the role of Federal employees in the ``Most Efficient Organization'' or ``MEO,'' which is the in-house side of these competitions. This was not deliberate--this particular circumstance for protest was simply not contemplated by Congress when drafting CICA.

Recent revisions to A-76 created the potential for GAO to review past decisions by Federal courts and revisit its own opinions to see whether the revisions would merit a determination that Federal employees had gained standing to protest adverse A-76 competition decisions. However, a recent GAO protest decision indicates that GAO has concluded it lacks the authority under CICA to hear protests from Federal employees in the MEO in these competitions. As a result, corrective legislative action has become necessary in our view.

Our bill would extend GAO protest rights on behalf of the MEO in A-76 competitions to two individuals. The first is the Agency Tender Official or ``ATO.'' The ATO is the agency official who is responsible for developing and representing the Federal employees' MEO. The second is a representative chosen directly by the Federal employees in the MEO for the purposes of filing a protest with GAO where the ATO does not, in the view of a majority of the MEO, fulfill his or her duties in regards to a GAO protest.

As I mentioned, the rules under which these competitions are run must be fair. In addition to being objectively fair, however, I think they must also be perceived as fair by all parties. If the private sector perceives the rules to be unfair, they will decline to participate in competitive sourcing competitions, and the Federal Government will enjoy less competition in its acquisitions. If Federal employees perceive the rules to be unfair, there will be less interest in Federal employment at a time when we are all concerned about the Federal Government's human capital challenges. As the congressionally established Commercial Activities Panel noted in its report on competitive sourcing, the lack of GAO protest rights for Federal employees was one of the most often-heard complaints about the A-76 rules. Providing them with protest rights that are similar to those enjoyed by the private sector is, I think, vital to assuring Federal employees that the rules of the game are fair to them.

The rules must also be efficient. There are three interests that are served by A-76 rules that ensure a speedy process with finality. The Federal Government benefits by enjoying the benefits and efficiencies of competitive sourcing sooner rather than later. Federal workers benefit in that they spend less time having to worry about the outcome of these competitions, which can be stressful as they create uncertainty about employees' employment situations. Finally, because time is money in the private sector, private contractors will benefit by spending less time on competitions as well. In my view, having Federal employees vote to choose a representative to protest when they are dissatisfied with the ATO should achieve the maximum efficiency possible while respecting Federal employees' interests.

In the end, our intent is to bolster the A-76 process by providing a mechanism for Federal employees to seek redress from GAO, an entity that is well known for its fair, effective and expert handling of acquisition protests.

Mr. President, competitive sourcing is the process by which the Federal Government conducts a competition to compare the

cost of obtaining a needed commercial service from a private sector contractor rather than from Federal employees. Properly conducted, competitive sourcing can be an effective tool to achieve cost savings. Poorly utilized, however, it can increase costs and hurt the morale of the Federal workforce.

The current guidelines under which agencies conduct these competitions are contained in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-76 (A-76). To ensure that we maximize the benefit and minimize the cost of competitive sourcing, A-76 competition must be conducted in a carefully crafted manner. The rules under which they take place must be fair, objective, transparent, and efficient. In one particular regard, I believe the current rules fail to meet these criteria.

Specifically, they do not allow Federal employees to protest the agency's decisions in an A-76 competition beyond the agency's own internal review processes to the General Accounting Office (GAO). Congress has vested in the GAO the jurisdiction to hear and render opinions in protests of agency acquisition decisions generally. Private sector contractors, in contrast to federal employees, have standing to protest agency procurement decisions, including those in A-76 competitions, before GAO. Today, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, I am introducing legislation to correct this imbalance by providing Federal employees with standing to protest A-76 decisions to GAO.

The current situation does not arise from any conscious policy decision of Congress, GAO or OMB. Rather, it occurs because the Federal statute that confers protest jurisdiction upon GAO, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 or ``CICA,'' was not drafted to address the unique nature of A-76 competitions, in particular, the role of Federal employees in the ``Most Efficient Organization'' or ``MEO,'' which is the in-house side of these competitions. This was not deliberate--this particular circumstance for protest was simply not contemplated by Congress when drafting CICA.

Recent revisions to A-76 created the potential for GAO to review past decisions by Federal courts and revisit its own opinions to see whether the revisions would merit a determination that Federal employees had gained standing to protest adverse A-76 competition decisions. However, a recent GAO protest decision indicates that GAO has concluded it lacks the authority under CICA to hear protests from Federal employees in the MEO in these competitions. As a result, corrective legislative action has become necessary in our view.

Our bill would extend GAO protest rights on behalf of the MEO in A-76 competitions to two individuals. The first is the Agency Tender Official or ``ATO.'' The ATO is the agency official who is responsible for developing and representing the Federal employees' MEO. The second is a representative chosen directly by the Federal employees in the MEO for the purposes of filing a protest with GAO where the ATO does not, in the view of a majority of the MEO, fulfill his or her duties in regards to a GAO protest.

As I mentioned, the rules under which these competitions are run must be fair. In addition to being objectively fair, however, I think they must also be perceived as fair by all parties. If the private sector perceives the rules to be unfair, they will decline to participate in competitive sourcing competitions, and the Federal Government will enjoy less competition in its acquisitions. If Federal employees perceive the rules to be unfair, there will be less interest in Federal employment at a time when we are all concerned about the Federal Government's human capital challenges. As the congressionally established Commercial Activities Panel noted in its report on competitive sourcing, the lack of GAO protest rights for Federal employees was one of the most often-heard complaints about the A-76 rules. Providing them with protest rights that are similar to those enjoyed by the private sector is, I think, vital to assuring Federal employees that the rules of the game are fair to them.

The rules must also be efficient. There are three interests that are served by A-76 rules that ensure a speedy process with finality. The Federal Government benefits by enjoying the benefits and efficiencies of competitive sourcing sooner rather than later. Federal workers benefit in that they spend less time having to worry about the outcome of these competitions, which can be stressful as they create uncertainty about employees' employment situations. Finally, because time is money in the private sector, private contractors will benefit by spending less time on competitions as well. In my view, having Federal employees vote to choose a representative to protest when they are dissatisfied with the ATO should achieve the maximum efficiency possible while respecting Federal employees' interests.

In the end, our intent is to bolster the A-76 process by providing a mechanism for Federal employees to seek redress from GAO, an entity that is well known for its fair, effective and expert handling of acquisition protests.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my colleagues and support the Children and Media Research Advancement Act or CAMRA. The development of our Nation's children is vital and the way in which media impacts their ability to grow and develop is imperative. For many years, I have been concerned about the impact media has on our children.

The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released their report on electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers-- ages 0 to 6 years old. Not surprisingly, the study found that children today are reared in a media saturated environment.

According to the study, 99 percent of all children live in a home with a TV set and 50 percent of these children live in a home with three or more TVs of which 36 percent have a TV in their bedroom.

Perhaps even more startling, 30 percent of children ages zero to three years and 43 percent of four to six year olds have a TV in their bedroom. Additionally, 27 percent of children have their own VCR or DVD player in their rooms and 10 percent have their own video game console in their room as well.

Further, 73 percent of children ages 0 to 6 have a computer at home, and 49 percent of these young people have a video game player.

Even more concerning is that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under two do not watch any television. The Academy further states that all children over two should be limited to one or two hours of educational screen media a day.

However, despite this recommendation, the Kaiser study found that in a typical day, 68 percent of all children under two use screen media-- 59 percent watch TV, 42 percent watch a video or DVD, five percent use computers and three percent play video games. The study also found that 74 percent of all infants and toddlers have watched TV before the age of two.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of comprehensive research that provides detailed data on the relationship between media and brain development in children. That is why I am pleased to support the Children and Media Research Advancement Act. This will not only encourage much needed research in this area, but will also serve to coordinate such research.

Providing parents and guardians with the most accurate information regarding the impact media has on their children is essential--to do anything less would be reprehensible.

Already many studies--including ones that followed children from age 8 until mid-adulthood (age 30 plus years)--have demonstrated a link between early exposure to entertainment violence and aggressive attitudes, values and behaviors, including increased levels of violent crime against others.

There are three main effects on children of viewing entertainment violence: aggression more likely to think and behave aggressively, and hold attitudes and values favorable to the use of aggression to resolve conflicts; desensitization decreased sensitivity to violence and a greater willingness to tolerate increasing levels of violence in society; fear viewers may develop the ``mean world syndrome'' in which they overestimate their risk of becoming victims of violence.

Even in the Kaiser study I referenced earlier, among all parents whose zero to six year olds watched TV, 81 percent said that they saw their children imitate behaviors from television--36 percent of parents reported that their children mimicked aggressive behavior, 78 percent mimicked positive behavior. When focusing on the four to six year age group, mimicking aggressive behaviors increase to nearly half or 47 percent, with aggressive behavior being imitated more frequently with boys, 59 percent than with girls at 35 percent.

Clearly, we must continue to encourage and fund studies that will show the effects media has on the development of the adolescent brain. I am pleased that CAMRA will encourage this much-needed research in such a crucial area.

Protecting our nation's children and ensuring that parents have the most accurate and complete information on the effects of media on their children should remain our top priority. I look forward to working with Senators Lieberman and Clinton on an issue that is vital to our society.