Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2005

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the tremendously successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 2 additional years.

Without Congressional action, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp will expire on December 31 of this year.

The life of this extraordinary stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be a highly effective and self-supporting fundraiser.

Since 1998, the American people have bought over 588 million breast cancer stamps--raising $42.66 million for breast cancer research.

The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Defense have put these research dollars to good use by funding novel and innovative research in the area of breast cancer.

Over a 7 year period, the Breast Cancer Stamp has demonstrated a very sustained and committed customer base.

Millions of Americans have bought the stamps to honor loved ones with the disease, to highlight their own personal battle with breast cancer or to promote general public awareness--in hope of helping to find a cure.

One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused public awareness on this devastating disease and the need for additional research funding.

There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our Nation:

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the United States, ranking second among cancer deaths in women after lung cancer.

In 2005, approximately 211,240 women in the U.S. will get breast cancer.

About 40,410 women will die from the disease this year.

There are over two million women living today in the U.S. who have been treated for breast cancer.

Though much less common, about 1,300 men in America are diagnosed with breast cancer each year.

It is imperative that we extend the life of this stamp so that we can continue to reach out to American women and men who do not know of their cancer and to those who are living with it.

This legislation would extend the authorization of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for two additional years until December 31, 2007.

The stamp would continue to have a surcharge of up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research.

Extending the Breast Cancer Research stamp does not affect any other semi-postal proposals under consideration by the Postal Service.

We urge our colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another 2 years.

Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives.

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

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei (``Alice'') Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who live in San Bruno, California.

I have decided to offer private relief immigration bills on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer.

The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before the immigration laws changed in 1996.

Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States 22 years ago as tourists and established residency in the San Bruno, CA. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States.

After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 13 years old, Bruce, 10 years old, and Eva, 7 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety. The immigration judge who presided over the Liang's case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them. And that was 7 years ago. I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 7 more years.

The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are home owners, and are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream.

Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an immigration judge. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, however, did not act on their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time the immigration laws had significantly changed.

According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were long-term residents of this country with US citizen children and other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application, however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage.

I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while battling a severe form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native

country of Laos during the Vietnam War. Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.

The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn native country have been profound and continue to haunt him. In addition to being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, his psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens. Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs.

I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record and that the attached three letters of community support also be printed.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 22-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA.

I have decided to introduce a private bill on his behalf because I believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties.

Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada

spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother.

The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependents. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage.

Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation.

For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported from the United States and forced to return to Japan.

First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, he earned a number of awards including being named an ``Outstanding English Student'' his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John Inumerable, describes him as being ``responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable.'' His role as the Vice-President of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the ``Most Inspirational Player of the Year'' in Junior Varsity baseball and football, as well as, Varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has ``seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous.''

Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for 4 years as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of ``integrity'' who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a ``team player.'' His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was 2 hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he will be formally hired to continue coaching the team.

Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of legalizing their immigration status in the United States. His older sister is married to a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt, who is a United States citizen. Since as all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be ``lost'' if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read the language.

As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an ``upstanding `All-American' young man''. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders' immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.

Currently, Mr. Yamada holds sophomore status at Southwestern Community College. However, he is taking this semester off in order to alleviate his financial burdens by working full time. He had hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement, but his plans have recently changed due to his current immigration status dilemma. Until he obtains citizenship, Mr. Yamada will be prohibited from pursuing a career in law enforcement. Due to the circumstances, Mr. Yamada has changed his career goal to that of becoming a high school teacher. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own ``individual fortitude,'' he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life.

With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada lawful permanent resident status so that he can continue towards his bright future.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children. Today, they face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system.

The Fulop's story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief.

The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May 2000, when the Fulops eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15 year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star of his family.

That same year their six-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but requires medical supervision to ensure her good health.

The Fulop's youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being closely monitored by physicians.

Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents.

Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect. Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulop's application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with U.S. Citizen children and many positive factors in their favor.

The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother is handicap and they went to help remodel his home.

The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry contractor and the owner and president of his own construction company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for 10 years and currently has three full-time employees.

The couple are active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs. Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school and community.''

Mr. President, this is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were

changed in the middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief ceased to exist.

The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on the children, all of whom were born here and who range from one year old to 17 years of age. Their eldest, Dennis, is a 4.0 honor student at Palomar Community College having graduated from high school one year early. His sister, Linda, has a 3.8 grade point average and is an honor student in high school.

It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States given their many years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen children.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2005. This legislation will require that individuals are notified when their most sensitive personal information is stolen from a corporate or government database. This is the second Congress in a row that I have introduced this legislation-- it is time for us to pass it to give Americans the notice they need to protect themselves from identity thieves.

Specifically, the bill would require government or private entities to notify individuals if a data breach has compromised their Social Security number, driver's license number, credit card number, debit card number or financial account numbers.

In most cases, if authorities know that someone is a victim of a crime, the victim is notified. But, that isn't the case if an individual's most sensitive personal information is stolen from an electronic database.

Measuring the problem of security breaches is difficult, because many companies never report breaches of their systems for fear that their reputation for securing data would be harmed. But, in a survey conducted in 2004 by the FBI and the Computer Security Institute, 52 percent of respondents reported some level of unauthorized use of their computer systems. (Source: 2004 CSI/FBI Computer Crime and Security Survey)

Data breaches are becoming all too common. Consider the following incidents which have compromised the

records of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

On January 10, 2005, George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia notified 30,000 students that their names, photos and Social Security numbers were taken by an online intruder; (Source: Cnet news, ``Hackers Steal ID Info from Virginia University,'' Monday, January 11, 2005)

On August 30, 2004, a University of California-Berkeley database containing the personal information of 600,000 people was penetrated. The computer contained names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and Social Security numbers; (Source: Associated Press, October 21, 2004)

Already in the new year, cell phone carrier T-Mobile announced that a hacker broke into its database and accessed the names and Social Security numbers of 400 customers. (Source: Cnet News, ``Hacker Had Limited Access'' January 12, 2004)

Last year, San Diego State University reported that hackers broke into a server, gaining access to names and Social Security numbers for more than 178,000 former and current students, alumni and staff; (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, ``Colleges Leaking Confidential Data,'' April 5, 2004)

At the Georgia Institute of Technology, a hacker downloaded information that could have included names, addresses, phone numbers and credit card numbers for about 57,775 people; (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, ``Colleges Leaking Confidential Data,'' April 5, 2004) and

Finally, in 2004, a Florida man and his employees hacked into Acxiom Corp.'s computer system for 16 months and stole large amounts of personal information. Christopher Way, a U.S. assistant attorney general, said then that the case represents ``what may be the largest intrusion of personal data ever.'' (Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, ``Hacker Accesses Load of Data from Acxiom,'' July 22, 2004)

My home State of California has a similar data notification law, on which my bill today is modeled. But this sort of protection needs to be extended to all Americans.

I strongly believe Americans should be notified if a hacker gets access to their most personal data. This is both a matter of principle and a practical measure to curb identity theft.

Let me take a moment to describe the proposed legislation.

The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act will set a national standard for notification of consumers when a data breach occurs.

The legislation requires a business or government entity to notify an individual when there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a hacker or other criminal has obtained unencrypted personal data maintained by the entity.

Personal data is defined by the bill as an individual's Social Security number, State identification number, driver's license number, financial account number, or credit card number.

The legislation's notification scheme minimizes the burdens on companies or agencies that must report a data breach. In general, notice would have to be provided to each person whose data was compromised in writing or through e-mail.

But there are important exceptions.

First, companies that have developed their own reasonable notification policies are given a safe harbor under the bill and are exempted from its notification requirements.

Second, encrypted data is exempted.

Third, where it is too expensive or impractical (e.g., contact address information is incomplete) to notify every individual who is harmed, the bill allows entities to send out an alternative form of notice called ``substitute notice.'' Substitute notice includes posting notice on a website or notifying major media. Substitute notice would be triggered if any of the following factors exist:

(i) the agency or person demonstrates that the cost of providing direct notice would exceed $250,000;

(ii) the affected class of subject persons to be notified exceeds 500,000; or

(iii) the agency or person does not have sufficient contact information to notify people whose information is at risk.

The bill has a tough, but fair enforcement regime. Entities that fail to comply with the bill will be subject to fines by the Federal Trade Commission of $5,000 per violation or up to $25,000 per day while the violation persists. State Attorneys General can also file suit to enforce the statute.

Additionally, the bill would allow California's law to remain in effect, but preempt conflicting state laws. It is my understanding that legislators in a number of states are developing bills modeled after the California law. Reportedly, some of these bills have requirements that are inconsistent with the California legislation. It is not fair to put companies in a situation that forces them to comply with database notification laws of 50 different states.

A year after California's landmark legislation went into effect, the law has raised overall awareness of the need to have strong privacy protections in place. Chris Jay Hoofnagle, associate director of the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center, said: ``the California law has given the public a window into a very serious problem of information security.'' (Source: Associated Press, ``Authorities Probe U.C. Hacking Attack,'' October 21, 2004)

As Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, points out ``if [California] didn't have this law, the vast majority of these situations would go unreported.'' (Source: The Orange County Register, ``Ingram Micro Discloses Database Break-In,'' May 15, 2004)

I strongly believe individuals have a right to be notified when their most sensitive information is compromised--because it is truly their information. Ask the ordinary person on the street if he or she would like to know if a criminal had illegally gained access to their personal information from a database--the answer will be a resounding yes.

Enabling consumers to be notified in a timely manner of security breaches involving their personal data will help combat the growing scourge of identity theft. If individuals are informed of the theft of their Social Security numbers or other sensitive information, they can take immediate preventative action.

They can place a fraud alert on their credit report to prevent crooks from obtaining credit cards in their name;

They can monitor their credit reports to see if unauthorized activity has occurred;

They can cancel any affected financial or consumer or utility accounts; and

They can change their phone numbers if necessary.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this vitally needed legislation. This bill will give ordinary Americans more control and confidence about the safety of their personal information. Americans will have the security of knowing that should a breach occur, they will be notified and be able to take protective action. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the ``Privacy Act of 2005.''

This legislation would establish, for the first time, a comprehensive national system of privacy protection. This is the second Congress in a row that I have introduced this legislation. Every year that we wait, millions more Americans become victims of identity theft. It is time for us to act.

As you know, Mr. President, I have ardently fought for years for legislation to hamper identity theft. Today, this legislation is one of three bills that I am introducing to continue that fight. I am also introducing the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2005, and the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2005. I urge my colleagues to pass all of them, to protect Americans from those who would steal our very identities.

At the heart of this bill is the requirement that companies may not sell consumers' most intimate personal information unless consumers affirmatively give their authorization. This is known as ``opt-in.'' Therefore, companies must obtain consumers' written consent prior to selling their personal health information, financial information, Social Security numbers, and drivers' license data (opt-in). For this sensitive data, the bill gives the individual ultimate control over whether

or not his or her information is shared. If an individual does not actively decide to permit sharing of personal data, the data is not disclosed.

The bill recognizes that different sorts of information deserve different levels of protection. For information that is still personal, but not as intimate, the bill allows businesses more flexibility. Therefore, for other personal information--names, physical addresses, e-mail addresses, telephones, photographs, birth dates, places of birth, and birth certificate numbers--companies can sell the information so long as consumers receive notice of the companies' intent, and an opportunity to object and prohibit the sale of their information. This is known as ``opt-out.''

That is structure of the overall bill. Let me take a moment to go over some of the specifics.

For financial data, the Privacy Act would tighten the information- sharing provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This legislation would modify that statute, to prohibit the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal financial information to third parties unless the consumer affirmatively consents or opts in. The legislation would also require that banks let consumers opt out of the sharing of their personal financial information with the bank's affiliates or joint partners. The bill makes exceptions for vital public safety concerns. The Privacy Act of 2005 also prohibits banks from denying a customer a financial product or financial service if the consumer withholds consent.

For sensitive medical information, this legislation would expand on the Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations, by extending the restrictions placed on ``covered entities'' (health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouses) to ``non- covered entities'' (business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers). All of those entities will be able to share information only with the patients' consent.

For Social Security numbers, this bill will prohibit the sale or display of an individual's Social Security number to the general public without the individual's express consent, and prohibit federal, state, and local governments from displaying the numbers on the Internet, or from printing them on checks and drivers' licenses. This legislation also recognizes legitimate uses of Social Security numbers, by allowing the sale of Social Security numbers between businesses, or between the government and businesses, among other exceptions.

This legislation protects the privacy of information regardless of the medium through which it is collected. Therefore, it recognizes that both paper and electronic records are important to protecting the identities of Americans.

To minimize the regulatory burden of these privacy rules, the bill sets up a safe harbor so that industries that established approved policies will be exempt from some regulatory requirements of the legislation.

To ensure uniformity of the laws across all 50 states, the bill preempts inconsistent state laws regarding the treatment of non- sensitive information.

I note that this legislation is modeled on the California Financial Information Privacy Act, which gives consumers the right to require their consent before financial companies share their most intimate data. The plan is a good one for Californians, and it is a good one for all Americans. The fact that the California law is under assault in the courts makes it all the more vital that the uniform, national standard I introduce today becomes law.

I want to give a sense of why this legislation is so necessary. Recent statistics on the growth of identity theft show we have no time to waste in protecting personal privacy.

For years, identity theft has topped the list of complaints reported to the Federal Trade Commission. In 2003, the Commission received over half a million such complaints, about 42 percent of the total. While the FTC will not report its numbers for 2004 until early February, I unfortunately expect to again see identity theft as the cause of the most complaints.

According to a 2003 report from the FTC, 10 million Americans discovered that year their identities had been stolen. The report also stated that consumers have to spend an average of 30 hours to clear their name; The Identity Theft Resource Center puts the number at 175 hours. And as Attorney General John Ashcroft said last August, ``Identity theft costs the nation's businesses nearly $50 billion a year in fraudulent transactions and often involves coordinated criminal conduct.''

My own State, California, has more victims of identity theft than any other state. The FTC recorded 39,452 complaints of identity theft cases in 2003 in California alone.

But the numbers tell only part of the story. More important are the individual people whose lives have been devastated by identity theft. Let me tell just one story that I find particularly disturbing:

Eric Drew was a patient in a hospital receiving a bone marrow transplant. Yet unbeknownst to him, a worker in the hospital had stolen Drew's identity, and had taken advantage of this sick patient. As the Associated Press reported, ``Drew said that while he was lying in a hospital bed, dying from cancer and weak from massive doses of chemotherapy, he began to get mail thanking him for opening accounts he knew nothing about.'' In this case, luckily, the criminal was caught and convicted.

Since I introduced this legislation for the first time in the 108th Congress, there are millions more stories like this one.

Indeed, there are also new common methods of identity theft. There has been a massive upswing in the phenomenon known as ``Phishing,'' in which criminals send emails to people, spoofed to fraudulently look like emails from banks and other financial institutions. These emails tell consumers to click on a Web page, and then to enter their name, account numbers, passwords, and other sensitive financial information. The criminals then use this information not only to steal from the unwitting consumers, but to literally lock them out of their own accounts. This one sort of identity theft has, according to a December study from e-mail security company MessageLabs, increased by almost tenfold over the last year.

Given the grave risks that technology poses to our privacy, it is our responsibility to start taking action. This is especially the case for older Americans, who are disproportionately vulnerable to identity theft, as I tried to highlight last year by cosponsoring the ``Protecting Older Americans From Fraud Month'' resolution last October.

I would like to highlight some of the key provisions of the law.

For financial information this legislation tightens the privacy provisions of the Financial Services Modernization Act, commonly known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a bank can share a customer's personal information with other companies so long as it gives consumers notice and the right to opt-out of the data sharing.

The problem with the prevailing opt-out is that most people throw away their privacy notices from banks along with the rest of the unrelenting pile of commercial solicitations they receive. Since the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, banks have sent out over one billion privacy notices.

According to available published information, fewer than 5 percent of bank customers have opted out of sharing their personal information, and for many financial institutions, the response rate has been less than one percent.

Accordingly, this legislation prohibits the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal financial information to third parties unless the consumer affirmatively consents or opts in--the burden thus shifts off of the consumer.

This legislation also toughens Federal financial privacy laws for affiliate-sharing and joint-marketing. An affiliate is a company that is linked by common ownership with another company. Under Federal law, a bank can share with affiliates or joint marketing partners regardless of whether the consumer wants this information shared.

This legislation would require that banks give consumers the option of opting out of the sharing of their personal financial information with the bank's affiliates or joint partners.

I would also like to describe several other key components of the financial privacy section.

The bill prohibits banks from denying a customer a financial product or financial service just because the customer chooses to not disclose his personal information to third parties, affiliates, or joint venture partners. However, the bill does allow banks to offer incentives to customers to encourage them to permit the sharing of their personal information.

Additionally, the bill permits banks to disclose, but not sell, personal information to third parties for vital public interest purposes such as identifying or locating missing and abducted children, witnesses, criminals and fugitives, parents delinquent in child support payments, organ and bone marrow donors, pension fund beneficiaries, and missing heirs.

Just as with financial data, personal health and medical data deserves the most stringent privacy protections.

The recently adopted Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations set a basic opt-in framework for disclosure of health information. But more can be done to protect patient privacy.

The regulations only prohibit ``covered entities''--namely health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouse--from selling a patient's health information without that patient's prior consent.

Meanwhile, non-covered entities--such as business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers--are not subject to this opt-in requirement, except through contractual arrangements.

This legislation would preserve the privacy of health information wherever the information is sold. Any business associate, life insurer, school or non-covered entity trying to sell or market protected health information would, like covered entities, have to get the patient's prior consent. This is a crucial step to protect what is truly our most intimate information.

Drivers' license data also are given the strongest level of protection under this bill.

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, DPPA was amended in 2000 to offer some meaningful protections for drivers' privacy.

For example, under the DPPA, a State Department of Motor Vehicles must obtain the prior consent (opt-in) of the driver before ``highly sensitive information''--defined as a physical copy of the license, a Social Security number, medical or disability information, and other information can be disclosed to a third party.

However, loopholes remain. Other sensitive information found on a driver's license deserves equal protection.

This legislation would expand the definition of ``highly sensitive information'' to include a physical copy of a driver's license, the driver identification number, birth date, information on the driver's physical characteristics and any biometric identifiers, such as a fingerprint, that are found on the driver's license.

Thus, this bill would ensure consumers have control over how their motor vehicle records and driver's license data are used.

I would like to take a moment to highlight the Social Security number section of this legislation. I have also introduced this section as a stand-alone bill, the ``Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2005.''

It is crucial to protect Social Security numbers because Social Security numbers are the key to a person's identity. Many identity theft cases start with the theft of a Social Security number. Once a thief has access to a victim's Social Security number, it is only a short step to acquiring credit cards, driver's licenses, or other crucial identification documents.

This legislation bars the sale or display of Social Security numbers to the public except in a very narrow set of circumstances. In general display or sale is permitted only if the Social Security number holder affirmatively consents or if there are compelling public safety needs. Government entities will have to redact Social Security numbers from electronic records that are readily available to the public on the Internet. State governments will no longer be permitted to use the Social Security number as the default driver's license number.

The legislation, however, recognizes that some industries rely on Social Security numbers to exchange information for certain transactions.

Thus, the bill directs the Attorney General to develop regulations allowing for the sale or purchase of Social Security Numbers to facilitate business-to-business and business-to-government transactions, so long as businesses put appropriate safeguards in place and do not permit public access to the number.

This legislation codifies steps Congress can take to protect citizens from identity thieves and other predators of personal information.

It restores to an individual more control over her most sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers, health information, and financial information. It also sets reasonable guidelines for businesses that handle our personal information every day. Every American has a fundamental right to privacy, no matter how fast our technology grows or changes.

Last year, President Bush signed into law the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, legislation that I helped to write, to increase punishment on people who steal others' identities. I am proud of my work to make that bill into a law. But we all must realize that punishment is no substitute for prevention. My legislation today will make fewer suffer from identity theft in the first place.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

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

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation to expand the federal loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers.

Nationwide, only 30 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program.

In California, that number is even smaller: about eighteen percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree.

To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning.

Recruiting and maintaining teachers with such qualifications is the only way to jump-start cognitive development and ensure that our children start elementary school ready to learn.

A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services called the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) found a strong relationship between the education of Head Start teachers and classroom quality. Teachers with higher education levels were found to be more sensitive and responsive to their children, to have more high quality language activities, and more creative activities in their classrooms.

Teachers with higher levels of education also had classes with higher quality language activities such as reading books for the children and provided more opportunities for children to develop skills in expressing thoughts.

Head Start is the primary federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing.

We know that poor children disproportionately start school behind their peers--they are less likely to count to 10 or to recite the alphabet.

Many of our nation's youngsters enter elementary school without the basic skills necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers throughout their academic career.

As taxpayers, we will spend millions on efforts to help these children catch up. Many of these children will never catch up. A recent national study by The High/Scope Perry Preschool confirms the importance of providing preschool children with the opportunity early on to gain the basic skills necessary for school.

The study found that preschoolers were more likely to graduate from high school and be employed at age 40, earn more money a year, and were more likely to own a home and have a savings account.

We can save millions by providing low-income children with access to quality preschool where they will gain the necessary skills to succeed in school and life.

In order to give every child a head start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving.

Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better.

Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of $21,287 compared to $43,152 for an elementary school teacher.

Head Start teachers are making half of what elementary school teachers are paid on average.

Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, is a real deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers.

And every teacher that Head Start loses impacts the quality and access to services for our nation's low-income children.

One way to recruit and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers is to offer incentives to pursue a career in this field.

Current law allows elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for five years of service.

We believe Head Start teachers should be given this same opportunity.

The legislation we are introducing today is meant to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in the Head Start field.

In exchange for 5 years of service, a Head Start teacher could receive up to $5,000 of their federal loans forgiven.

We must continue to improve the Head Start program so that children will have the necessary cognitive skills when they leave the program, such as being able to count to ten, begin to recite the alphabet, and recognize sizes and colors.

This is just the first step. To further ensure cognitive learning, we must also continue to raise the standards and pay for Head Start teachers.

Providing our nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success and should be a priority of this Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Maria Cristina Degrassi, a 37-year-old severely disabled Italian national currently living with her family in San Mateo, California.

I have decided to offer private relief legislation on Ms. Degrassi's behalf because I believe that her removal from the United States would be tragically unfair not only to her, but to her sister and brother-in- law, Daniela Degrassi and Luca Prasso, who reside legally in the United States and who are Ms. Degrassi's closest family and only willing caregivers.

Ms. Degrassi has legally resided in the United States since 1997 on a non-immigrant tourist visa. However, she is not like an ordinary tourist. She cannot enjoy California's beautiful coastline or stunning mountain ranges. She cannot tour Hollywood movie studios or Napa Valley wineries. Ms. Degrassi was born premature in 1965 and, consequently, is severely mentally handicapped and autistic. Because of these disabilities, Ms. Degrassi has the mental capacity of a two-year old, cannot speak and understands only a few sentences in Italian.

In addition to these challenges, Ms. Degrassi was diagnosed with diabetes in 2001 and now requires daily insulin shots and a carefully monitored diet.

For Ms. Degrassi, the sum of these health problems means that she must have 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week personal care and attention. Luckily, however, there are two people in Ms. Degrassi's life who are more than happy not only to care for her daily needs, but to love and nurture her.

Ms. Degrassi's sister, Daniela, and her brother-in-law, Luca, are legal permanent residents of the United States. Mr. Prasso is a highly skilled and valued employee of PDI-DreamWorks, the world renowned movie production company. Serving as a Character Technical Supervisor and earning nearly $200,000 per year, Mr. Prasso has worked on such critically acclaimed films as ``Shrek'' and ``ANTZ.'' In the course of that work, Mr. Prasso has developed and patented new technologies and become a leader in his field. In a letter in support of this private legislation, DreamWorks referred to Mr. Prasso's skills as ``rar[e]'' and ``irreplaceable.''

Daniela Degrassi has also excelled in the United States, starting a successful freelance photography career and business.

Together, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi have provided Ms. Degrassi with the love, care and attention that she so desperately needs. When Ms. Degrassi's father and aunt died in 1997, the couple knew that they were the only family left who was willing to care for her. The choice for them was clear. Mr. Prasso wrote in a letter he sent me, ``My wife and I then faced a big decision. We refuse[d] completely to put her in an institution. We [could not] accept the idea of not being able to properly take care of her. No other relative was alive or came forward to offer help. We were the only and closest persons to Cristina. We decided to take care of her like a daughter.''

For the past seven years, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi have done just that, organizing their lives around caring for and attending to Ms. Degrassi.

They cook for her and clothe and bathe her on a daily basis. Because of the close monitoring Ms. Degrassi's diabetic condition requires, when the couple wants to go out to dinner or see a movie, they must do so separately so that one of them is always with Ms. Degrassi in case of an emergency.

Despite the hardships that caring for Ms. Degrassi have imposed upon Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi, the experience has deeply enriched their lives. In Mr. Prasso's letter, he wrote, ``despite my long work hours and my wife['s] new successful business as a photographer, we are able and fully committed to continue to take care [of Cristina] 24 hours a day . . . The reward of a kiss, hug or smile from Cristina is an amazing thing and makes all the pain disappear.''

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this wonderful family will face a tragic set of choices. Since 1997, Ms. Degrassi has applied for and always received six-month extensions of her non-immigrant tourist visa. The Degrassi's lawyer has informed the couple that approval of the current extension is unlikely and has recommended they withdraw their petition. This would leave Ms. Degrassi with nothing. There are no other avenues available for her to remain in the United States lawfully. In short, if this private relief legislation is not approved, Ms. Degrassi will be forced to return to Italy.

However, Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi's love for their sister will never allow her to return to Italy alone. Faced with Ms. Degrassi's removal, the couple will leave their lives in California and move back with her in order to continue to provide the care and attention on which Ms. Degrassi depends.

The consequences of such a move will be tragic for this family. It will mean the end of Mr. Prasso's highly accomplished career with DreamWorks, as well as, the end of the photography career Daniela Degrassi has worked so hard to build. In addition, both Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi are eligible to become United States citizens this year.

I can think of no compelling reasons why the United States should not enable this family to continue as they have in California. Because of the substantial salary that Mr. Prasso and Daniela Degrassi earn and because of the monthly pension Ms. Degrassi receives, due to her disability, from the Italian government, there is almost no chance that Ms. Degrassi will become a burden on the state or federal government.

In Mr. Prasso's letter to me, he made this simple request, ``We are looking forward to find[ing] a permanent solution to this dilemma that does not involve dismembering this family or giving up on a wonderful job. A solution that will allow us to live a normal life like a normal family.''

We can make this solution a reality for Ms. Degrassi and this wonderful family. For that reason, I offer this private relief legislation and ask my colleagues to support it.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Ms. Degrassi.

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

Mr. President, I introduce today the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005'', legislation to reform the way the federal government treats unaccompanied alien children who are apprehended by federal immigration officials at our borders or within the United States.

I first introduced legislation similar to this bill during the 107th Congress and still strongly believe that its passage is necessary to ensure the proper treatment of unaccompanied alien children within our federal system. With each passing year, as members realize the necessity for this legislation, the bill has moved further along in the process.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins, Schumer, Hagel, Durbin, DeWine, Cantwell, Inouye and Feingold as original co-sponsors of this legislation.

During the 108th Congress, the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' passed the Senate by unanimous consent, after garnering no less than 34 co-sponsors. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the House of Representatives.

So today I re-introduce this legislation, and again, this will be one of my top legislative priorities because I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that every child that comes into contact with federal officials is afforded fair and humane treatment.

In 2004, approximately 6,200 unaccompanied alien children were apprehended by Department of Homeland Security officials and transferred to the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. This number has grown over the years and shows no signs of abating.

Thousands of foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. These children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population and these numbers are going to continue to grow given the greater emphasis on enforcement actions by immigration officials--which I support--and the relatively unchanged conditions bringing them here.

These children are from all over the world, although the majority encountered by immigration officials today are from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Some are asylum seekers fleeing human rights abuses and armed conflict in their homelands. Others are fleeing abuses specific to children, such as forced recruitment of child soldiers, forced prostitution and servitude, sexual slavery and exploitation, child labor, abuse of street children, child brides and female genital mutilation. Yet other children come to the United States because they have been abused, abandoned or neglected by their parents or caregivers. And finally, some come seeking to reunify with family members already in the United States or seeking a better life.

Historically, U.S. immigration law and policies have been developed and implemented without regard to their effect on children. This result has been similar to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole--it just doesn't work.

Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles or courtroom and administrative procedures. Because of this, children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very life-threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.

Prior to March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service had responsibility for the care, custody and treatment of unaccompanied alien children. Unfortunately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service fell short in

fulfilling these responsibilities. The legislation that I am introducing today builds on Section 462 of Public Law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which provided for the transfer of responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Section 462 was based on S. 121, comprehensive legislation relating to unaccompanied alien children that I introduced during the 107th Congress.

With the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, we set into motion the centralization of responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children with the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The first phase of this transfer of responsibility occurred on March 1, 2003. Once the transition was completed, we finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system which pitted the enforcement side of the Immigration and Naturalization Service against the benefits side of that same agency in the care of unaccompanied alien children.

I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was contained in the Homeland Security Act and that by all accounts the transition in the care of children between the affected agencies has gone well.

But, the transfer of authority to the Office of Refugee Resettlement--by itself--is not enough to ensure that these children are treated fairly and humanely. Congress now has a responsibility to go beyond the simple transfer to actually laying out the process and steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are treated fairly and humanely. We must provide the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice with the tools they will need to succeed in their missions regarding the care of unaccompanied alien children after the transfer of jurisdiction took place.

First of all, I want to stress that this bill is not about benefits, as it provides no new immigration benefit to unaccompanied alien children. Rather, this bill is about the process of how we treat these children.

The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' provides guidance and instruction to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the following areas:

First, in the custody, release, family reunification and detention of unaccompanied alien children;

Second, it provides access by unaccompanied alien children to guardians ad litem and pro bono counsel;

Third, it streamlines the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program and provides guidance on the training of federal government officials and private parties who come into contact with unaccompanied alien children;

Fourth, it requires the issuance of guidelines specific to children's asylum claims;

Fifth, it authorizes appropriations for the care of unaccompanied alien children; and

Sixth, it amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide additional responsibilities and powers to the Office of Refugee Resettlement with respect to unaccompanied alien children.

Central throughout the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' are two concepts:

The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and in all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a priority protecting the interests of these children.

I first became involved in this issue in 2000 when I heard about a young 15-year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. immigration court facing deportation proceedings with her hands chained to her waist, like a criminal. She had found her way to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country.

She had been placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, fleeing China's rigid family planning laws. Under these laws, she was denied citizenship, education and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate.

And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? The Immigration and Naturalization Service detained her in a juvenile jail in Portland, Oregon for eight months before her asylum hearing, and more than seven weeks after she was granted asylum.

At her asylum hearing, the young girl stood before a judge, unrepresented by counsel, confused and unable to understand the proceedings against her. She could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to a lawyer who later came to represent her, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.''

While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl represents only one of the more than 6,000 foreign-born children who, without parents or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States each year in need of protection.

This is unacceptable treatment and we have a responsibility to do better than this.

Imagine the fear of an unaccompanied alien child, in the United States alone, without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system he or she does not understand, provided no access to pro bono counsel or guardians ad litem, placed in jail with adults or housed with juveniles with serious criminal convictions. I find it hard to believe that our country would allow children to be treated in such a manner.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children to treat them fairly and humanely.

I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Amnesty International USA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.

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

Mr. President, I offer today private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California.

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for almost 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 18, and Cindy, age 16, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 13, Daniel, age 9, and Saray, age 8, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two eldest children face deportation.

The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Arreolas are in this uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the detriment he caused his immigration clients.

Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program had he known about it.

Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct of their previous attorney.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S. citizens, as I stated earlier, and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.

Nayely, the oldest, is a freshman at Fresno Pacific University. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to attend college. She attends Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and works part-time in the admissions office.

At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[t]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''

In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also president of the Key Club, a community service organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.

It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indications, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family.

The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record and that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation cosponsored by Senator Boxer to adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of California to include the addition of the Mill Creek property. This continues the effort initiated in the last Congress with the leadership of Congressman Mike Thompson, to solidify and expand the co-operative management relationship between the United States Government and the State of California, working together to protect forever the ancient majesty of the redwood forest.

In 2002, the California Department of Parks and Recreation acquired from the Save-the-Redwoods League 25,000 acres of forest land known as the Mill Creek property in Del Norte County, which is contiguous with the Redwood National and State parks boundary. This bill would include within the park boundary the Mill Creek acquisition and about 900 acres of land acquired and added to the State redwood parks since the 1978 expansion of the Redwood National Park boundary. There would be no Federal costs for land acquisition or development resulting from this legislation.

Approval of the expansion of the boundary of Redwood National Park to include the headwaters of Mill Creek will complete the vision of the Redwood Park embraced by Senator Kuchel in S.1370 that he introduced in 1967, a vision dating back to the McLaughlin-Cook report issued by the National Park Service in 1937. Protection of the headwaters of Mill Creek will secure the long term viability of the ancient redwoods already within Redwood National and State Park. It would permanently safeguard the coho salmon who return to spawn in the clear, cold waters of this forest.

These lands will be managed by the same cooperative management agreement between the National Park Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. This partnership is viewed as a model of interagency cooperative management efforts and will provide for more efficient and costeffective management of an ecologically significant resource.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and Federal officials, including Del Norte County and the Department of the Interior. Given this support and lack of controversy, I believe this legislation to be of great importance to ensure that our Redwood National Park is further protected.

I have long held a deep interest in protecting California's magnificent Redwoods. The coast redwood, the sequoia sempervirens, is native only to the West Coast where it stands in a narrow band from the tip of the Big Sur Coast to the Chetco River, just north of the California-Oregon border. The redwood stands taller than any other tree in the world and traces its lineage to among the oldest of living things. The cathedrals formed by these ancient trees inspire the best in us as a people. The redwood forests of California are a national and worldwide treasure that is ours to protect and preserve.

In 1966, the Headwaters Agreement was negotiated in part in my offices to protect approximately 7,500 acres of old growth redwoods, which was the largest grove of redwoods held in private ownership at the time. It is my great pleasure today to introduce this legislation to extend our national commitment to collaboration in preservation of the redwoods and the watersheds they anchor.

I applaud Congressman Mike Thompson's commitment to this issue and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I rise today to introduce a bill that combines needed help for small Yosemite schools, and an addition to the beautiful Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Each of these bills individually has passed both the House and Senate in previous Congresses.

The first title of this legislation provides critical funds to three small schools nestled in the heart of Yosemite National Park and authorizes the Yosemite Regional Transportation System to shuttle visitors in and out of the park.

Approximately 130 children of park service employees are taught in the three elementary small schools located in Yosemite National Park-- Wawona, El Portal, and Yosemite Valley elementary schools.

These schools represent a dying breed of education models; they are small schools that teach children who live in remote communities and are taught by one or a group of teachers. At El Portal, three teachers instruct 53 students in seven grades. Wawona has 17 students in 7 grades who are taught by one teacher/principal.

And Yosemite Valley serves 60 students in 8 grades who are taught by two teachers.

The remote location of these schools, their small sizes and California's unique method for funding education, have all contributed to the schools amassing a combined deficit of $290,000. In their efforts to continue to provide basic educational services to students, the schools have had to cut supplemental instruction that would normally be available to students taught outside of the park.

Some have suggested that these schools consolidate into one to pool their limited resources. While this may seem to solve the problem, you must understand that many of these students already travel many miles on treacherous mountainous roads to attend their current schools. If the three schools were to consolidate, this problem would be exacerbated, requiring many students to make a 2 hour commute to their new schools.

I do not believe this is a viable option and that is why I support this legislation.

Last year, Senator Bingaman, Congressman Radanovich and I worked out a compromise on this legislation that would help the schools while protecting the National Park Service's budget. The compromise includes the following terms:

For fiscal year 2006 through 2009, the Secretary of the Interior may provide up to $400,000 in funds to the Bass Lake Union Elementary School District and the Mariposa Unified School District for educational services to students who are dependents of persons engaged in the administration, operation, and maintenance of the Park or students who live at or near the Park; the Secretary can only provide the funds if the State of California and local agencies maintain 2005 per-student funding levels to the schools, and the Secretary also must make sure that the assistance to the schools does not reduce the remaining funding available to Yosemite National Park below fiscal year 2005 levels.

Furthermore, this legislation allows the Park Service to allot federal funds for the continuing operation of a bus service that shuttles visitors through Yosemite National Park--the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System.

The federally funded demonstration project that allowed YARTS to offer services on a temporary basis expired in May 2002 and since then, YARTS has leveraged local funds to ensure that services were not discontinued.

Both the Park Service and YARTS are supportive of continuing their mutually beneficial agreement. This legislation would do just that by taking the burden off local entities and providing the necessary assistance that this service needs.

I am also pleased to introduce today a second title in this legislation to allow the National Park Service to extend the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, GGNRA, by acquiring critical natural landscapes and scenic vistas.

This bill meets several distinct needs in California and national needs of all National Park System visitors by adding 4,600 acres of pristine natural land to the boundary of the Golden Gate Recreation Area. It will protect four major watersheds, preserve the home of numerous threatened, rare and endangered plant and animal species in the region, allow potential access to valuable future trail links to contiguous State and county parks, and establish a dramatic and logical southern entrance to the park.

A key component of this legislation is its three-way, local-state- federal partnership. Half of the total purchase price of these lands has already been donated by local and State sources. Additionally, this legislation specifically provides that all land transactions involve a willing seller and willing buyer.

Furthermore, this bill has the strong support of local community groups, the former Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the National Park Service, and the California State Farm Bureau. It also has the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News. I know of no opposition to this bill.

Expanding the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to include Rancho Corral de Tierra through such a beneficial partnership is an opportunity not to be missed. A vast land within a major metropolitan area that offers extraordinary scenic views of the Pacific coastline and the greater Bay Area, a place with plants found nowhere else on earth find refuge, a home for rare and endangered animals, is available now for protection and enjoyment. We have the chance to enjoy this special land and to leave a lasting legacy for our children and our grandchildren.

California's national parks are truly invaluable and the park that this bill supports offers an opportunity for visitors and residents to enjoy unique national habitats and offers a unique chance for the National Park Service and the community to work together, not only to protect the environment, but also the interests of the nearby communities and national and international visitors.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Tom Lantos plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his leadership on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers' Protection Act of 2005. This act will guarantee tough, mandatory punishment for criminals who murder or assault police officers, firefighters, judges, court employees, ambulance-crew members, and other public-safety officers in the course of their duties. Attacks on police officers and judges are serious crimes. They merit the toughest penalties. LEOPA imposes the following terms of imprisonment for attacks on public-safety officers: (1) second degree murder, 30 years to life; (2) voluntary manslaughter, 15 to 40 years; (3) assault resulting in serious bodily injury, 15 to 40 years; (4) assault with a dangerous weapon, 15 to 40 years; and (5) assault resulting in bodily injury, 5 to 20 years. The act also imposes commensurate penalties for retaliatory murders, kidnappings, and assaults committed against the family members of public-safety officers.

LEOPA includes additional provisions that will deter attacks upon police officers. The act expedites Federal-court review of state convictions for murder of a public-safety officer; it limits the damages that can be recovered by criminals for any injuries experienced during their arrest; it removes arbitrary barriers to retired officers' right to carry concealed weapons under Federal law; it makes it a crime to publicize a public-safety officer's identity in order to threaten or intimidate him; and it increases existing penalties for obstruction of justice and interference with court proceedings.

Aggravated assaults against police officers are a serious national problem. According to the most recent F.RI. report on the subject, 52 law-enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the United States in 2003. In the 10 year period from 1994 through 2003, a total of 616 lawenforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the United States.

These officers' assailants unquestionably are among the worst criminals. Of those individuals responsible for unlawful killings of police officers between 1994 and 2003, 521 had a prior criminal arrest, including 153 who had a prior arrest for assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest. The individuals who commit these types of offenses are among the most dangerous members of the criminal class. Tough sentences for these criminals not only protect those who risk their lives to protect us; they also directly protect the public at large by removing a dangerous class of criminals from society.

Ordinary assaults against police officers have become a widespread problem. More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in the course of their duties in 2003, and more than a quarter of these assaults resulted in injury to the officer. These numbers represent more than one of every 10 officers serving in the United States. Our society apparently has reached a point where criminals feel entitled to assault a police officer when they are being arrested. LEOPA is designed to change that understanding, to show criminals that assaults against police officers are unacceptable.

It bears mention that because of improvements in technology, recent years' numbers of officers killed in the line of duty even understate the extent of the violence that officers face. As the Los Angeles Times noted in 1994, ``the number of officers killed--an average of 60 to 70 a year since the late 1980s--would have broken records, too, if not for the advent of bulletproof vests, police experts say; about 400 officers have survived shootings over the last decade because they were wearing protective armor.'' (Faye Fiore & Miles Corwin, Toll of Violence Haunts Families of Police Officers, N.Y. Times, Feb. 21, 1994, at 1). As the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police noted recently, ``there's less respect for authority in general and police officers specifically. The predisposition of criminals to use firearms is probably at the highest point in our history.'' (Jerry Nachtigal, Crime Down, but Number of Police Officers Killed Holds Steady, Associated Press Newswires, Apr. 11, 1999).

Violence against police officers also inhibits effective law enforcement. It breeds caution among officers and hinders robust investigation. LEOPA is designed to restore balance to the law. It is designed to ensure that police officers do not fear for their safety when enforcmg the law, but instead, that criminals fear the consequences of breaking the law.

Finally, aside from their broader effects on law enforcement and society, aggravated assaults and murders of police officers simply are terrible crimes. The victims often are young and in the prime of life, leaving behind young children, spouses, and grieving parents. A few recent incidents in the news serve to illustrate the horrific toll that these homicides take on the surviving victims:

Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Shayne York, 26 years old, was murdered during an invasion robbery while waiting for his fiancee at a hair salon on August 16, 1997. He was killed solely because of his status as a police officer. The Los Angeles Times gave the following account of the crime from the testimony at the killer's trial:

The robbers yelled racial slurs and ordered customers and

employees to the floor, snatching valuables from everyone

inside. When one of the bandits found a law enforcement badge

in York's wallet, he kicked York as he lay on the ground,

according to testimony from [York's fiancee], also a Los

Angeles County sheriff's deputy. The gunman asked York if he

ever mistreated blacks and Crips gang members at Los Angeles

County's Pitchess Detention Center, where York worked. York

responded, ``No, sir.'' [The killer,] an alleged Crips gang

member, then pointed a pistol at the back of York's head and

squeezed the trigger, prosecutors said. [York's fiancee]

testified she saw York's body go limp as she felt his blood

flowing onto her legs. She said she heard the gunman say, ``I

always wanted to kill a pig.'' (Jack Leonard & Monte Morin,

Man Guilty of Killing Off-Duty Deputy, L.A. Times, Aug. 23,

2000, at B1.)

Deputy York's killer never expressed any remorse over this senseless crime. When jurors read their verdict at his trial, he shouted at them, ``May Allah kill you all, pagans, infidels.'' (Stuart Pfeifer & Richard Marosi, Jury Recommends Death for Robber Who Killed Deputy, L.A. Times, Sept. 8, 2000, at B7.)

California Highway Patrol Officer Don Burt, 25 years old, was shot seven times by a member of a street gang during a traffic stop on July 13, 1996. As Officer Burt lay wounded on the ground, the killer shot him in the head. The Los Angeles Times, covering the killer's trial, gave the following account of the testimony describing the devastating impact of Officer Burt's death on his family:

[Don Burt's father] relived some of his happiest memories

with his son--the wedding of his son and [daughter-in-law]

Kristin, and the day he was told he was going to be a

grandfather. But the proudest moment for both father and son

was when the younger Burt joined the Highway Patrol. ``I

pinned on his badge and 1 hugged him,'' the father said,

tearfully. ``The proudest I'd ever seen him. The gleam he had

in his eye--he was so proud.''

It was a quiet summer night the night his son died, [Burt's

father] told the 12-member jury. He and his wife had just

finished dinner. The telephone rang. It was their daughter-

in-law's father, also a CHP officer, saying there had been a

shooting in the area that the younger Burt patrolled. The

elder Burt, a 30-year veteran trooper, called the CHP

dispatch center to learn more. A patrol car arrived to take

the parents to the hospital. ``We drove [to the hospital] in

dead silence,'' Burt said. ``I knew my son was dead and 1

couldn't tell my wife. She was sitting there with hope and 1

couldn't tell her.''

Jeannie Burt said she didn't realize how serious her son's

injuries were until a few minutes after they arrived at the

hospital. ``I thought he wasn't hurt too bad, that everything

was going to be all right,'' Jeannie Burt told jurors. But

then, ``I saw Kristin's brother and he just shook his head.

And 1 knew my son was dead.'' Tears streamed down Jeannie

Burt's cheeks through most of her testimony. ``He wasn't

perfect, but pretty close to it,'' the mother said through

her tears. ``I'm grateful 1 had my son for the 25 years 1 had

him. 1 wouldn't trade that with anything. I'm just so sad

that my daughter-in-law has lost the love of her life. That

his son does not have a father.''

Kristin Burt, widow of the slain officer, said she was

seven months pregnant with their first child when her husband

of nearly three years was killed. She took the stand Monday,

faltering and fighting back tears as she described how the

coroner told her that her husband was dead. The coroner

``held my hand and slipped Don's wedding ring into my hand,''

Kristin Burt said. (Louis Roug & Meg James, Rage in the

Courtroom, L.A. Times, Apr. 18, 2000, at B1.)

Officer Burt's son, Cameron, was born two months after he was killed.

Compton Police Officers Kevin Burrell and James MacDonald were shot and killed by a wanted criminal during a traffic stop on February 22, 1993. Newspapers gave the following account of the crime: ``The officers were wearing bulletproof vests when they stopped a red pickup truck about 11 p.m., but were knocked to the ground by bullet wounds to their limbs. With the officers lying in the rain-soaked street, [the killer] pumped bullets into their heads, execution-style.'' (Jodi Wi1goren, Killer of 2 Compton Police Officers Sentenced to Death, L.A. Times, Aug. 16, 1995, at 1.)

Officers Burrell and MacDonald were both young men, with all of their parents still living, at the time of their deaths. At the killer's trial, their families described the deep trauma that the crime created. The Los Angeles Times gave the following account:

One after another, the mothers and fathers of Officers

James Wayne MacDonald and Kevin Michael Burrell took the

stand to cry out their losses. Three could not complete their

testimony without breaking down so badly that court recessed.

Burrell's mother told how she had heard the shots that killed

her son a few blocks from her home. MacDonald's father,

sobbing uncontrollably, blurted, ``Come home, Jimmy, let me

trade places with you,'' when he was asked what he would tell

his son if he could bring him back.

James and Tonia MacDonald told how they visit their son's

grave twice each day in their hometown of Santa Rosa, just to

chat. Clark and Edna Burrell told how neither of them can

bear to visit the cemetery where their son now lies.

``I heard the shots,'' Edna Burrell said. Then she told how

she reasoned that her son had been hit. ``I was listening to

my police scanner,'' she said, ``and I knew it was Kevin

because I didn't hear them call his name'' on other dispatch

calls. ``So when she (a police officer) knocked on my door,

all I could do is scream, 'Oh God, they shot my baby. ``,

With that, Edna Burrell broke down. Overwhelmed, she was led

from the courtroom, past where [ the killer] sat staring

straight ahead. Sobbing softly, she repeated what she had

said on the stand: ``How could he do that? How could he do

that?''

Both sets of parents said the deaths of their sons left

them feeling empty, lost and angry. ``The whole time I was

praying, just to let Jimmy live until I could see him

again,'' Tonia MacDonald sobbed, remembering the hours after

she was told about the

shooting. ``And then I was so mad at God. All I wanted was to

see him one more time.''

All four parents said old friends have fallen away as grief

consumed their lives. Mother's Day, James MacDonald

testified, has become unbearable. ``This year, when I got up,

I didn't tell her (his wife) 'Happy Mother's Day' because

it's a tough day,'' he said. ``I could see the tears in her

eyes.'' (Emily Adams, Slain Officers'' Parents Tell of Pain,

L.A. Times, June 1, 1995, at 1.)

It bears mention that all of the criminals responsible for the murders described here were convicted of capital offenses, and will be subject to the expedited federal review provisions in section 6 of LEOPA once they complete their State appeals.

Section 6 of the bill is named for Dr. John B. Jamison, a Coconino County, AZ, Reserve Sheriffs Deputy who was murdered while responding to a fellow deputy's call for assistance on September 6, 1982. The killer fired 30 rounds from an assault rifle into Dr. Jamison's car, killing the deputy before he could reach his gun or even unbuckle his seatbelt. Dr. Jamison was survived by his 13-year-old son and 10-year- old daughter. State courts completed their review of the killer's conviction and sentence in 1985. Federal courts then delayed the case for an additional 15 years. One judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit even tried to postpone the killer's final execution date on the alleged basis that the killer was wrongfully denied state funds to investigate a rare neurological condition that his lawyer had learned of while watching television. Dr. Jamison's killer ultimately was executed in 2000--18 years after the crime occurred, and 15 years after federal habeas-corpus proceedings began.

Section 6 is designed to prevent these kinds of delays in Federal review of cases involving state convictions for the murder of a public- safety officer. In the district court, parties will be required to move for an evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin 60 days later and last no longer than 3 months. All district-court review must be completed within 15 months of the completion of briefing. In the court of appeals, the court must complete review within 120 days of the completion of briefing. In most cases, these limits will ensure that federal review of a defendant's appeal is completed within less than 2 years. This section also makes these deadlines practical and enforceable by limiting federal review to those claims presenting meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime--defendants would be barred from re-litigating claims unrelated to guilt or innocence. (Defendants still will be permitted to litigate all their legal claims in state court on direct review and state-habeas review, and in petitions for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.)

The need for this provision is particularly stark in the judicial circuit that includes my home state of Arizona. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's pattern of blocking capital punishment for all murderers--including those who kill police officers--is well documented. A recent committee report of the U.S. Senate, for example, notes that: ``Data for the last ten years show that outside of the Ninth Circuit, usually 70 to 80 percent of death sentences are affirmed by a [federal] Court of Appeals on collateral review. In almost every year, however, the Ninth Circuit has reversed the majority of death sentences that it reviews. Moreover, this percentage has climbed sharply in recent years . . . In the last three years, the Ninth Circuit has reversed 88 percent, 80 percent, and 86 percent of the death sentences that it has reviewed.'' (S. Rep. No. 107-315 (2002), at 72-73) The Senate report also notes that a core group of Ninth Circuit judges vote to reverse virtually every death sentence that they review. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, for example, had reviewed 31 death sentences by 2002, and voted to reverse every single one. Other Ninth Circuit judges have similar records.

As Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski has noted, ``there are those of my colleagues who have never voted to uphold a death sentence and doubtless never wil1.'' He continued: ``Refusing to enforce a valid law is a violation of the judges' oath--something that most judges consider a shameful breach of duty. . . . [But] to slow down the pace of executions by finding fault with every death sentence is considered by some to be highly honorable.'' (Alex Kozinski, Tinkering with Death, The New Yorker, Feb. 10, 1997, at 48-53)

This pattern of behavior extends to the Ninth Circuit's review of death sentences imposed for the murder of police officers. In the nine States under the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, 34 criminals have been sentenced to death for murdering police officers since the late 1970's. Only one--the man who killed Dr. Jamison--has ever been executed. The Ninth Circuit consistently has obstructed all other death sentences for criminals convicted of murdering police officers in the western States.

As one Orange County newspaper columnist notes, these numbers reflect poorly on our society's commitment to ensuring justice for slain police officers and their families:

When California voters reinstated the death penalty in

1978, they made killing an on-duty peace officer one of the

``special circumstances'' that could subject the killer to

execution. The idea behind that was simple enough. If you

made killing a cop a death-penalty offense, maybe it would

make criminals think twice before doing it. . . . But it's

doubtful that the special circumstance concerning peace

officers strikes any fear into the heart of a would-be cop-

killer. Because in the 24 years since the new death-penalty

law was passed, not one cop-killer has been executed in

California. During that time, more than 200 California peace

officers have been murdered in the line of duty, including

eight in Orange County, and dozens of cop-killers have been

sent to death row. But not one has died for his crime. True,

California hasn't been in any hurry to execute other

murderers, either. Since 1978, more than 700 killers have

been sent to death row, but only 10 have been executed. But

the justice system seems particularly reluctant to actually

enforce the death penalty against cop-killers. ``That sends a

terrible message,'' says Marianne Wrede of Anaheim Hills,

whose son, West Covina Police Officer Kenneth Wrede, was

murdered in 1983. ``It says the justice system doesn't

respect the sacrifices of police officers and their

families.'' (Gordon Dillow, State Balks at Executing Cop-

Killers, The Orange County Reg., Dec. 5, 2002)

These unconscionable delays have greatly increased the suffering experienced by the surviving families of murdered police officers. Again, a few examples from recent news stories illustrate the nature of the problems created by the current system of decades-long post- conviction review:

On August 31, 1983, West Covina Police Officer Kenneth Wrede, 26 years old, responded to a call about a man behaving strangely in a residential neighborhood. Wrede confronted the man, who became abusive and tried to hit Wrede with an 8-foot tree spike. Wrede could have shot the man, but instead attempted to defuse the situation. The man then reached into Wrede's car and ripped the shotgun and rack from the dashboard. Wrede drew his gun and persuaded the man to lay down the shotgun, but the man picked it up again when Wrede lowered his revolver and shot Wrede in the head, killing him instantly.

Years later, Wrede's parents described the terrible impact of this crime on their family. Marianne Wrede told of how ``a half hour before local television newscasts would broadcast the story, her doorbell rang. On the steps stood her son's commander and a police lieutenant. Between them stood Kenneth Wrede's distraught wife. `I knew it was bad news,' Marianne Wrede said. `I shut the door in their faces and I said, `It can't be my boy.' '' (Laura-Lynne Powell, Grief Unites Kin of Fallen Officers, The Orange County Reg., June 20,1991, at EO1) Many years after the crime, she reflected that ``every day I miss my son and it never goes away.'' (Anne C. Mulkern & Tiffany Montgomery, Caring Counts in Line of Duty, The Orange County Reg., Sept. 25, 1996, at BO1) Ken Wrede's father also described the impact of the loss of his son. ``My life will never be the same. I deal with it every day; when I hear a police siren and immediately think of my son, when I pull up next to a police car and think that that could have been him. I still stop as often as I can and tell the officers to have a good day and be careful.'' (David Haldane & Michael Wagner, For Some, a Reminder of Past Tragedy, L.A. Times, July 15, 1996, at A3)

Officer Wrede's killer was sentenced to death in 1984, and that conviction was affirmed by the California Supreme Court in 1989. Then in 2000--17 years after Ken Wrede's murder--a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the killer's death sentence. The

Ninth Circuit found that the killer's lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase because he did not present additional evidence of the killer's abusive childhood and drug use.

At the time, Marianne Wrede noted, ``We thought we finally were close to getting this behind us. And now this.'' (Gordon Dillow, Long Wait for Justice Gets Worse, The Orange County Reg., May 11, 2000, at BO1) A California Deputy Attorney General denounced the decision, stating that ``it can always be suggested a jury should have heard something else in the penalty phase of a death penalty case.'' (Richard Winston, Reversal of Death Penalty in Officer's Killing Decried Courts, L.A. Times, May 10, 2000, at B3) West Covina Corporal Robert Tibbets, the original investigator at the scene of Wrede's murder, described the Ninth Circuit's decision as a ``miscarriage of justice.'' (Id.) He had promised Wrede's parents that he would accompany them to every court hearing for their son's killer. He made good on his promise, even 19 years later, when the killer was retried and again sentenced to death in 2002. But the Wredes now face another round of state and then federal appeals. At the retrial, Ken's father noted that ``my family and 1 had endured 19 years of trial, appeals, delays, causing us to relive the trauma of Kenny's death over and over again.'' The trial judge agreed. He stated, ``It is an obscenity to put anyone through this needlessly for 19 years. It is inexcusable for us in the system that we need to look at this case for 19 years to get it resolved. The system at some point in the line has become clogged and broken.'' (Larry Welborn, 19 Years and no Resolution for Parents, The Orange County Reg., Sept. 21, 2002)

Riverside Police Officers Dennis Doty and Philip Trust were killed by a man whom they attempted to arrest at his home on May 13, 1982. The man was in bed when the officers arrived and they permitted him to dress. The man then pulled out a gun that he had been sitting on and shot and killed both officers. He apparently sought revenge for injuries that he sustained when he was shot while committing a bank robbery. Officer Doty had served a tour of duty in Vietnam, where he had received a purple heart and bronze star. The State supreme court affirmed the killer's conviction and death sentence in 1991.

In 2002, 20 years after the murders, Federal district court reversed the killer's death sentence, finding that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not trust his lawyers. Local Superior Court judge Edward Webster denounced the decision, declaring that he was ``outraged by the entire federal process.'' He declared that ``this [ decision] is just a product of judges'' personal opinions and philosophies opposing the death penalty.'' (Marlowe Churchill, Riverside Judge Takes Federal Court to Task, The Press-Enterprise, July 22, 1995, at BO1) The Riverside assistant police chief noted that the decision was particularly unfortunate for the officers' families: ``They lived this 20 years ago, and not to have closure on the trial process is particularly difficult'' (Mike Kataoka, Court Annuls Death Decree, The Press Enterprise, May 31, 2002, at BO1)

Los Angeles Police Detective Tom Williams was shot and killed by a man against whom he had testified several hours earlier in a robbery trial on October 31, 1985. Detective Williams was killed while picking up his son at a day-care center. A local newspaper gave the following account of the crime: ``With [his son] Ryan sitting beside him in the front seat of his truck, Williams, 42, saw the man in the ski mask, saw the automatic weapon pointing out of the driver's side window of the passing car. But he was helpless to do anything to protect himself. All he had time to do was scream for Ryan to get down, then cover the boy with his own body.'' (Dennis McCarthy, Youth Feels Need to Serve, L.A. Daily News, Aug. 24, 1993, at Nl) The Los Angeles Times gave the following account of testimony from the killer's trial:

A seventh-grade pupil at a Canoga Park church school

testified Wednesday that he saw 6-year-old Ryan Williams

sitting on the ground crying moments after the boy's father,

a Los Angeles police detective, had been gunned down in the

street on Oct. 31,1985. Thomas C. Williams, 42, was picking

up Ryan from school at 5:40 p.m. when he was struck by eight

bullets from an automatic weapon. The detective died, slumped

against the driver's side of his orange pickup truck. . . .

[The pupil] said he looked toward Williams' truck, parked in

front of the Faith Baptist Church school, and saw the

windshield shatter. ``It split into pieces,'' [he] said.

``Then I ducked. I couldn't see anything. I got up because I

heard some little boy cry. I walked over. He was sitting on

the ground and he was crying and he had a bloody lip.'' (Lynn

Steinberg, Boy Tells of Fatal Attack on Detective, L.A.

Times, Feb. 11, 1998, at 12)

Detective Williams's killer remains on death row today, 20 years after committing this crime.

Garden Grove police officer Donald Reed was shot and killed while arresting a man at a bar on June 7, 1980. The killer appeared at first to cooperate with police, but then pulled a pistol from his jacket and began firing. One officer who comforted Reed as he lay on the ground describe the scene: ``I could see a sense of panic in Don's eyes. He said, `I am not gonna make it' '' (Daniel Yi, Slain Officer's Family Testifies, L.A. Times, Feb. 9, 2000, at B1)

When Reed died, he had two toddler sons, ages 3 and 1\1/2\. Reed's killer was sentenced to death, but the sentence was reversed on appeal, and he was retried and sentenced to death again in 2000. Reed's sons were 22 and 21 by the time of the retrial. Still coping with the loss of their father, they chose not to attend the second trial. ``I was a mother, a father, I had to teach them everything,'' Reed's widow stated. (Id.) Of her husband, she simply noted, ``He was taken unnecessarily.'' (John McDonald, Officer's Widow Details Trauma, The Orange County Reg., Feb. 9, 2000, at B01) She also described the impact on her family of holding a second trial 20 years after the crime. ``We had all moved on, and then this came back and smacked us in the face. It really just tears you apart.'' (Daniel Yi, Slain Officer's Family Testifies, L.A. Times, Feb. 9, 2000, at B1)

Los Angeles Police Officer Paul Verna was gunned down during a traffic stop on June 2, 1983, by two men who earlier had committed a series of violent robberies. The first man shot Verna from inside the car, and the second then exited the vehicle and shot Verna five more times as he lay on the ground. Verna was survived by his wife and two young sons. Years later, the state supreme court reversed the death sentence of one of the killers. A new trial was held in 2000. At the first trial, Verna's widow described the devastating impact of the crime on her family. She spoke of how ``no one who has not done it can know how difficult it is to tell two young boys that the daddy they loved so much is gone.'' (Janet Rae-Dupree, 2 Sentenced to Die for Killing Policeman, L.A. Times, Sept. 21, 1985, at 6) A local newspaper gave the following accounts of the sentencing retrial:

Vema's sons were young boys, 4 and 9, when he was murdered.

This past week, they testified as young men. They told the

jury that they did not have a lot of first-hand recollection

of their dad. They did have the memories of stories from

their mom and many others as to what their dad was like. Ryan

[the younger son] spoke of sometimes feeling uneasy at being

told how much he looked like and even acted like his dad,

whom he does not remember. Sandy, Verna's widow, spoke of the

challenge of properly raising two very young boys alone. (Jim

Tatreau, Who Was Paul Verna? Murdered Officer Deeply Missed

Hero, L.A. Daily News, Oct. 22, 2000, at V3)

``At age 33, to be a widow--my roles in life completely

changed. The very hardest part was when they were very young

kids--when Ryan, who was 4 years old when his father died,

would get hurt and would cry to his mother at bedtime,

`Mommy, I just want my daddy.' I couldn't give that to him,

no matter how hard I tried. I could do everything else, but I

couldn't give him his daddy.'' (Jason Kandel, Retrial Brings

Victim's Family to Tears, L.A. Daily News, Sept. 27, 2000, at

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Cornyn of Texas, to introduce the ``DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.'' This act will allow State and Federal law enforcement to catch rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals whom it otherwise would be impossible to identify and arrest.

The principal provisions of the DNA Fingerprint Act make it easier to include and keep the DNA profiles of criminal arrestees in the National DNA Index System, where that profile can be compared to crime-scene evidence. By removing current barriers to maintaining data from criminal arrestees, the act will allow the creation of a comprehensive, robust database that will make it possible to catch serial rapists and murderers before they commit more crimes.

The impact this act will have on preventing rape and other violent crimes is not merely speculative. We know from real life examples that an all-arrestee database can prevent many future offenses. In March of this year, the city of Chicago produced a case study of eight serial killers in that city who would have been caught after their first offense--rather than after their fourth or tenth--if an all-arrestee database had been in place. This study is included in the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The first example that the Chicago study cites involves serial rapist and murderer Andre Crawford. In March 1993, Crawford was arrested for felony theft. Under the DNA Fingerprint Act, the state of Illinois would have been able to take a DNA sample from Crawford at that time and upload and keep that sample in NDIS, the national DNA database. But at that time--and still today--Federal law makes it difficult to upload an arrestee's profiles to NDIS, and bars States from keeping that profile in NDIS if the arrestee is not later convicted of a criminal offense. As a result, Crawford's DNA profile was not collected and it was not added to NDIS. And as a result, when Crawford murdered a 37- year-old woman on September 21, 1993, although DNA evidence was recovered from the crime scene, Crawford could not be identified as the perpetrator. And as a result, Crawford went on to commit many more rapes and murders.

On December 21, 1994, a 24-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned building on the 800 block of West 50th place in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the September 1993 murder, and this December 1994 murder could have been prevented.

On April 3, 1995, a 36-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Carpenter Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the two earlier murders that he had committed, and this April 1995 muurder could have been prevented.

On July 23, 1997, a 27-year-old woman was found murdered in a closet of an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 51st Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the three earlier murders that he had committed, and this July 1997 murder could have been prevented.

On December 27, 1997, a 42-year-old woman was raped in Chicago. As she walked down the street, a man approached her from behind, put a knife to her head, dragged her into an abandoned building on the 5100 block of South Peoria Street, and beat and raped her. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders that he had committed, and this December 1997 rape could have been prevented.

In June 1998, a 31-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned building on the 5000 block of South May Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this June 1998 murder could have been prevented.

On August 13, 1998, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 52nd Street. Her clothes were found in the alley. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the five earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this August 1998 murder could have been prevented.

Also on August 13, 1998, a 32-year-old woman was found murdered in the attic of a house on the 5200 block of South Marshfield. Her body was decomposed, but DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the six earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder could have been prevented.

On December 8, 1998, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered in a building on the 1200 block of West 52nd Street. She had rope marks around her neck and injuries to her face. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the seven earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this December 1998 murder could have been prevented.

On February 2, 1999, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered on the 1300 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the eight earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this February 1999 murder could have been prevented.

On April 21, 1999, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in the upstairs of an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Justine Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the nine earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this April 1999 murder could have been prevented.

And on June 20, 1999, a 41-year-old woman was found murdered in the attic of an abandoned building on the 1500 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered from blood on a nearby wall, indicating a struggle. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the ten earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder could have been prevented.

As the city of Chicago case study concludes:

In January 2000, Andre Crawford was charged with 11 murders

and 1 Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault. If his DNA sample

had been taken on March 6, 1993, the subsequent 10 murders

and 1 rape would not have happened.

The city of Chicago study goes on to discuss the cases of 7 other serial rapists and murders from that city. Collectively, together with Andre Crawford, these 8 serial rapists and

killers represent 22 murders and 30 rapes that could have been prevented had an all-arrestee database been in place.

The DNA Fingerprint Act eliminates current federal statutory restrictions that prevent states from adding and keeping arresttee profiles in NDIS. In effect, the Act would make it possible to build a comprehensive, robust national all-arrestee DNA database.

Here is how the DNA Fingerprint Act works: First, under current Federal law, a DNA profile from an arrestee cannot be uploaded to NDIS until the arrestee is charged in an indictment or information. Thus today, even an arrestee charged in a pleading cannot have his DNA uploaded to the national index. The act eliminates this restriction, allowing arrestees to be included as soon as they are arrested. It also eliminates a statutory restriction that bars inclusion of profiles from suspects who provide so-called ``exoneration'' samples. The act recognizes that criminal suspects have no legitimate interest in evading identification for crimes that they have committed.

Second, the act requires an arrestee to take the initiative to opt out of NDIS if charges against him have been dismissed or he has been acquitted, and he does not want his DNA profile compared to future crime scene evidence. Current law places the burden of determining who may be removed from the index on the administrator of the DNA database, thus requiring the administrator to track the progress of individual criminal cases. This bureaucratic burden discourages states from creating and maintaining comprehensive, all-arrestee DNA databases. It also effectively precludes the creation of a genuine national all- arrestee database. In effect, only convicts' DNA profiles can be kept in the database over the long term. The act would allow arrestee profiles to be kept in the database as well.

Third, the DNA Fingerprint Act would allow expanded use of CODIS grants. Congress currently appropriates funds for use by states to expand their DNA databases. Current law restricts the use of these grants, however, to only building databases of convicted felons. This bill expands this authorization to allow use of these funds to build a database of all DNA samples collected under lawful authority--including samples taken from arrestees.

Fourth, the DNA Fingerprint Act allows the Federal Government to take and keep DNA samples from arrestees. The act gives the Attorney-General the authority to develop regulations allowing collection of DNA profiles from federal arrestees or detainees. The authority to issue such regulations would give the Attorney General the flexibility needed to respond to new legal developments and changes in technology.

And finally, the act tolls the statute of limitations for Federal sex offenses. Current law generally tolls the statute of limitations for felony cases in which the perpetrator is implicated in the offense through DNA testing. The one exception to this tolling is the sexual- abuse offenses in chapter 109A of title 18. When Congress adopted general tolling, it left out chapter 109A, apparently because those crimes already are subject to the use of ``John Doe'' indictments to charge unidentified perpetrators. The Justice Department has made clear, however, that John Doe indictments are ``not an adequate substitute for the applicability of [tolling].'' The Department has criticized the exception in current law as ``work[ing] against the effective prosecution of rapes and other serious sexual assaults under chapter 109A,'' noting that it makes ``the statute of limitation rules for such offenses more restrictive than those for all other Federal offenses in cases involving DNA identification.'' The DNA Fingerprint Act corrects this anomaly by allowing tolling for chapter 109A offenses.

Further evidence of the potential effectiveness of a comprehensive, robust DNA database is available from the recent experience of Great Britain. The British have taken the lead in using DNA to solve crimes, creating a database that now includes 2,000,000 profiles. Their database has now reached the critical mass where it is big enough to serve as a highly effective tool for solving crimes. In the U.K., DNA from crime scenes produces a match to the DNA database in 40 percent of all cases. This amounted to 58,176 cold hits in the United Kingdom 2001. (See generally ``The Application of DNA Technology in England and Wales,'' a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice.) A broad DNA database works. The same tool should be made available in the United States.

Some critics of DNA databasing argue that a comprehensive database would violate criminal suspects' privacy rights. This is simply untrue. The sample of DNA that is kept in NDIS is what is called ``junk DNA''-- it is impossible to determine anything medically sensitive from this DNA. For example, this DNA does not allow the tester to determine if the donor is susceptible to particular diseases. The Justice Department addressed this issue in its statement of views on S. 1700, a DNA bill that was introduced in the 108th Congress:

[T]here [are no] legitimate privacy concerns that require

the retention or expansion of these [burdensome expungement

provisions]. The DNA identification system is already subject

to strict privacy rules, which generally limit the use of DNA

samples and DNA profiles in the system to law enforcement

identification purposes. See 42 U.S.C. 14132(b)-(c).

Moreover, the DNA profiles that are maintained in the

national index relate to 13 DNA sites that do not control any

traits or characteristics of individuals. Hence, the

databased information cannot be used to discern, for example,

anything about an individual's genetic illnesses, disorders,

or dispositions. Rather, by design, the information the

system retains in the databased DNA profiles is the

equivalent of a ``genetic fingerprint'' that uniquely

identifies an individual, but does not disclose other facts

about him.

Elsewhere in its Views Letter, the Justice Department also explained why the restrictive expungement provisions in current law are unnecessary and contrary to sound public policy. The letter noted that the FBI maintains a database of fingerprints of arrestees--without regard to whether the arrestee later was acquitted or convicted. The letter states, ``With respect to the . . . exclusion of DNA profiles of unindicted arrestees, it should be noted by way of comparison that there is no Federal policy that bars States from including fingerprints of arrestees in State and Federal law enforcement databases prior to indictment.'' The Justice Department also pointed out that ``[t]here is no reason to have a . . . Federal policy mandating expungement for DNA information. If the person whose DNA it is does not commit other crimes, then the information simply remains in a secure database and there is no adverse effect on his life. But if he commits a murder, rape, or other serious crime, and DNA matching can identify him as the perpetrator, then it is good that the information was retained.''

From the Chicago study--which examines the experience of just one American city over recent years--we know that an all-arrestee database can and inevitably will make the critical difference in solving and preventing violent sex offenses. From the British experience, we know that a comprehensive database can be a highly effective tool in solving crimes. And we know that DNA databasing does not violate the right to privacy. I urge the Congress to enact the DNA Fingerprint Act--before another preventable sex crime occurs.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the United States Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act. This legislation would formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute (USMCI), and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be in a better position to unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is a Professor of Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.

The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, D.C., area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.

The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, including Asian, Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic subpopulations.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Tsunami Preparedness Act with my friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, in our new capacities as Co-Chair and Chair of the Commerce Committee. Our bill today provides a scientific and technological response to minimize the threats posed by tsunami to our own shores, and the coastal communities of the world, as exemplified by the appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tragedy. The bill builds on our work to establish a system in the Pacific that is a model for the world, and also provides for its expansion and improvement to repair gaps that have been identified recently.

Protecting human life and property from natural disaster requires the ability to reliably detect and forecast, the capacity to broadcast warnings in a timely and informative manner, and the knowledge in communities of how to respond and evacuate to safety. Above all, however, it requires the willingness to invest resources to prepare for a threat that is largely unseen and unpredictable until the last moment, when a monstrous wave actually strikes.

The people of Alaska and Hawaii have long memories of the threat of tsunami. Perhaps it is because Hawaii sits in a position of terrible vulnerability in the Pacific Ocean, which is the site of 85 percent of the world's tsunami activity, and because Alaska, perched on the northern edge of the Pacific's Ring of Fire, suffers frequent tsunami- generating earthquakes.

In order to protect local communities, Hawaii established in 1949 a tsunami warning center, following a tragic Hilo tsunami. In response to the Good Friday earthquake and tsunami of 1964, which accounted for 90 percent of the deaths in the state that year, Alaska followed suit by establishing an observatory in Palmer, Alaska, in 1967. Collaborations between the two centers and other partners led to a nascent capacity for predicting and warning coastal communities about potential tsunami in Alaska and Hawaii and beyond.

As we came to understand the broader threat that tsunami posed, Ted Stevens and I worked together to pass legislation in 1994 to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.

We are pleased to report that the program has laid the foundation for tsunami preparedness. Through its Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), NOAA has developed Deep ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami--or ``DART''--buoys, which accurately measure the subtle variations in the ocean's sea level caused by tsunami traveling over open water. With these measurements, as well as readings from coastal gauges, the mathematical models PMEL and others have developed can forecast tsunami direction, speed, and inundation with astonishing accuracy. Although the worldwide network of seismic sensors operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides excellent notice of earthquakes with the potential to generate tsunami, the DART buoys represent a next-generation approach to detection and forecasting of tsunami that will form the backbone of our domestic preparedness.

Interpreting these data and issuing warnings are Hawaii's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and Alaska's West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, which jointly have the capacity to cover our domestic shores, and, at the same time, to reach out to all cooperating nations of the world.

Forecasting and warning networks, however, depend on ears who know how to respond, and so the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program has partnered with states and local authorities to produce inundation mapping, develop evacuation routes, and conduct tsunami education. As a result of much hard work, fifteen counties up and down the west coast, and in Alaska and Hawaii have become national and world leaders by becoming ``tsunami ready.''

The appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tragedy illustrates the importance and necessity of our work of the past ten years, and with stark clarity, we can see that despite our best efforts, much remains to be done. Now, as before, Senator Stevens and I have come together to lead the charge toward national and international tsunami preparedness.

Our legislation today formally authorizes NOAA to establish, operate, and maintain a dependable national tsunami warning system that would provide maximum tsunami detection capability for the nation. The system would build on the model established in the Pacific, and provide for its repair, expansion and modernization by the close of calendar year 2007. The system would include four components: an expanded and upgraded detection and warning system, a federal-state tsunami hazard mitigation program, a tsunami research program, and a modernization and upgrade program. In addition, the bill would direct NOAA to provide any necessary technical or other assistance to international efforts to establish regional systems in other parts of the world, including the Indian Ocean.

The detection and warning system established by the bill would cover the Pacific Ocean region, as well as the Atlantic-Caribbean-Gulf of Mexico region, and incorporate a variety of seismic and tsunami detection technologies, including deep ocean buoys, as well as encompass tsunami warning centers charged with collecting and analyzing the data and distributing warnings--including the existing Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii and the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska, as well as any others deemed necessary by the NOAA Administrator.

The bill also formally authorizes NOAA's Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program and its community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to improve tsunami preparedness of at-risk areas. The bill directs a Federal-State coordinating committee for the program, consisting (FEMA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and affected coastal states and territories, to work together to improve inundation mapping, community outreach and education, and promote and integrate tsunami warning and mitigation measures, including rescue and recovery guidelines. The program would provide grants to states to ensure the program elements are implemented in coastal communities.

The bill also requires NOAA to establish, along with other agencies and academic institutions, a tsunami research program to continuously improve detection, prediction, communication, and mitigation science and technology to support tsunami forecasts and warnings. This program would also focus on the potential for improved communications systems for tsunami and other hazard warnings, including telephones, wireless and satellite technology, the Internet, television and radio, and any innovative combination of these technologies.

A critical component of the bill requires NOAA to upgrade and modernize the U.S. tsunami detection system by December 2007, as well as provide accountability for the long-term operation of the system. NOAA is required to repair and upgrade the system, ensuring deployment of existing deep ocean detection buoys and related detection equipment, as well as notify Congress upon any equipment or system failures that will impair regional detection, and of significant contractor failures or delays. In addition, the bill calls for the National Academy of Sciences to review the system for further modernization recommendations.

The bill recognizes the need for global coordination on tsunami preparedness, requiring NOAA, and the interagency coordinating committee of the U.S. Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, to provide technical assistance and advice to international entities as part of an international effort to develop a fully functional global tsunami warning system.

Finally, the bill authorizes $35 million annually for six years to support these activities. Through this legislation, the work Senator Stevens and I started over ten years ago will step up to the next level, and provide our nation with coverage and protection that it needs, while fulfilling our duties as citizens of the global community.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program.

First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized.

Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jim K. Yoshida, to obtain recognition of his service with the U.S. military in Korea so that he may obtain veteran's status.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School Clinics Act. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to provide access to quality health care for Americans by offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.

Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care.

This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the medically underserved.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and often develop into full-blown disorders.

An Institute of Medicine IOM report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers must be encouraged. Through such training, rural health care providers can build a strong educational foundation from the behavioral, biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural communities.

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act would implement the

risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors. The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential psychological and financial savings are enormous.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act. This legislation would authorize a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for the payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

This bill was originally a provision within the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 76 to 21, but was dropped from the final Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report.

This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.

Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured and medically underserved Native Hawaiians and other United States citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community health centers, with their multidisciplinary approach, offer cost effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable populations.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief mill on behalf of Donald C. Pence of Stanford, North Carolina, for compensation for the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay dependency and indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now- deceased mother of Donald C. Pence. It is rare that a federal agency admits a mistake. In this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs has admitted that a mistake was made and explored ways to permit payment under the law, including equitable relief, but has found no provision authorizing the Department to release the remaining benefits that were unpaid to Mrs. Box at the time of her death. My bill would correct this injustice, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their State practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the TRICARE Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. I am introducing this bill on behalf of the American Nurses Association's Chief Executive Officer and President Linda Stierle, MSN, RN, CNAA and Barbara A. Blakeney, MS, APRN, BC, ANP, respectively. For over four decades I have been a committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing patterns be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer complications.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing. While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there is no standardized public reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed practice (vocational) nurse, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.

This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient registered nurse staffing. Given the demands that the healthcare industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the decisions by which care is provided are made by the clinical experts, the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill supports our nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.

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

Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's civilian employees of the Federal Government who have been forcibly detained or interned by a hostile government do not receive the recognition they deserve. My bill would correct this inequity and provide a prisoner of war medal for such citizens.

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

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Mr. President, our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great nation that we are today.

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

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Cooperative Housing Corporations (co-ops), to convert to condominium forms of ownership.

Under current law, a conversion from cooperative shareholding to condominium ownership is taxable at a corporate level as well as an individual level. The conversion is treated as a corporate liquidation, and therefore taxed accordingly. In addition, a capital gains tax is levied on any increase between the owner's basis in the co-op share pre-conversion and the market value of the condominium interest post- conversion. This double taxation dissuades condominium conversion because the owner is being taxed on the transaction which is nothing more than a change in the form of ownership. While the Internal Revenue Service concedes that there are no discernable advantages to society of the cooperative form of ownership, they do not view federal tax statutes as providing sufficient flexibility with which to address the obstacles of conversion.

Cooperative housing organizes the ownership structure into a corporation, with shares of stock for each apartment unit, which are sold to buyers. The corporation then issues a proprietary lease entitling the owner of the stock to the use of the unit in perpetuity. Because the investment is in the form of a share of stock, investors sometimes lose their entire investment as a result of debt incurred by the corporation in construction and development. In addition, due to the structure of a cooperative housing corporation, a prospective purchaser of shares in the corporation from an existing tenant- stockholders has difficulty obtaining mortgage financing for the purchase. Furthermore, tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing also encounter difficulties in securing bank loans for the full value of their investment.

As a result, owners of cooperative housing are increasingly looking toward conversion to the condominium structure of ownership. Condominium ownership permits the owner of a unit to own the unit itself, eliminating the cooperative housing dilemma of corporate debt that supercedes the investment of cooperative housing share owners, and other financial concerns.

The legislation I introduce today will remove the penalty of double taxation from the conversion of cooperative housing to condominium ownership, and will greatly benefit co-op owners across the nation. The bill does not apply to cooperatives which have been or are now being financed by any federal, state, or local programs for the purpose of assisting in the construction of affordable housing cooperatives or the conversion of rental units to affordable housing cooperatives. I urge my colleagues' consideration and support for this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing flights from the air transportation excise tax. A clarifying amendment to the Tax Code is needed due to a problem that exists in the application of the excise tax.

In 1986, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), issued a Private Letter Ruling in which it exempted one Hawaii-based air tour operator from paying the air passenger transportation excise tax, but has not applied equal treatment to other similarly situated aerial sightseeing tour operators. It is my belief that the IRS should be consistent in its application of this excise tax.

Under current law, a variety of excise taxes on air transportation are imposed to finance the Airport and Airway Trust funds program that is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. For example, an air passenger transportation excise tax is imposed on users of our nation's airports and airways. The Congress intended that the tax be levied on passengers traveling on scheduled commercial airlines. In addition, for the most part, the tax is imposed on each flight segment.

The Congress did not intend to have the tax applied to air tour operators, who utilize our system of airways differently. Our national transportation system receives little or no benefit from aerial sightseeing operations. Air tour operations are not scheduled commercial airlines. They are for entertainment purposes and are circular, in that they begin and end at the same destination point.

Hawaii is among a small handful of states where our citizens can enjoy aerial tours of sights that are remote or difficult to reach by land. Aerial sightseeing tours are also enjoyed in Alaska, California, Washington, Arizona, and even New York City. The imposition of the air transportation excise tax on aerial sightseeing flights will significantly raise the consumer price on air tours. Doing so will cause many small aerial sightseeing tour operators, especially in my home state, to lose customers. Many of these small companies have struggled to stay in business after incurring significant losses in the months following September 11, 2001, when our government imposed flight restrictions across the nation. Those flight restrictions prevented many flight operations in all segments of the general aviation industry for many months into early 2002.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing trips from the air transportation excise tax. Under my bill, air tour operations would still be subject to the aviation fuel excise tax.

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

Mr. President today I am introducing legislation that would provide a federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding health care professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, social work, and veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 150 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care practitioners.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.

I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.

Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems.

The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect. The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral and mental health care outcomes for our Nation's children, families, the elderly, and others.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost- effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social Work can provide in facilitating their work.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act. This legislation would (1) establish a new social work training program, (2) ensure that social work students are eligible for support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, (3) provide social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of Excellence programs, (4) permit schools offering degrees in social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and (5) ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to people of this Nation, few Federal programs exist to provide opportunities for social work training in health and mental health care.

Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers possess continues to be available to the citizens of this Nation. This bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I believe it is time to provide them with the recognition they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues.

Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health professionals who have participated in these specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with the underserved.

While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to initiate effective treatment.

Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing these problems.

Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services.

Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem.

It is a sad irony that Federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care.

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

Mr. President, tax shelter and tax haven abuses are undermining the integrity of our tax system, robbing the Treasury of tens of billions of dollars each year, and shifting the tax burden from high income individuals and businesses onto the backs of middle income families. These abuses account for a significant portion of the more than $300 billion in taxes owed by individuals, businesses, and organizations that goes unpaid each year. As a matter of fairness, these abuses must be stopped. Today, I am introducing, with Senator Norm Coleman, a comprehensive tax reform bill called the Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act of 2005 that can help put an end to these abuses. Senator Barack Obama is also an original cosponsor.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which I serve with Senator Coleman, has worked for years to expose and combat abusive tax shelters and tax havens. In the previous Congress, we introduced legislation confronting these twin threats to U.S. tax compliance; today's bill reflects not only the Subcommittee's additional investigative work but also innovative ideas to stop unethical tax advisers and tax havens from aiding and abetting U.S. tax evasion.

Abusive tax shelters are very different from legitimate tax shelters, such as deducting the interest paid on your home mortgage or Congressionally approved tax deductions for building affordable housing. Abusive tax shelters are complicated transactions promoted to provide large tax benefits unintended by the tax code. Abusive tax shelters are marked by one characteristic: there is no real economic or business rationale other than tax avoidance. As Judge Learned Hand wrote in Gregory v. Helvering, they are ``entered upon for no other motive but to escape taxation.''

Likewise, a tax haven is simply a country or jurisdiction that imposes little or no tax on income and offers non-residents the ability to escape taxes in their home country. The abuse of tax havens occurs when income is attributed to that country, even though little or no business activity actually occurs there. Tax havens are also characterized by corporate, bank, and tax secrecy laws that make it difficult for other countries to find out whether their citizens are using the tax haven to cheat on their taxes.

Today's tax dodges are often tough to prosecute. Crimes such as terrorism, murder, and fraud produce instant recognition of the immorality involved. Abusive tax shelters and tax havens, by contrast, are often ``MEGOs,'' meaning ``My Eyes Glaze Over.'' Those who cook up these concoctions count on their complexity to escape scrutiny and public ire. But regardless of how complicated or eye-glazing, the hawking of abusive tax shelters by tax professionals like accountants, bankers, investment advisers, and lawyers to thousands of people like late-night, cut-rate T.V. bargains is scandalous and has got to stop. Hiding tax schemes through offshore companies and bank accounts in tax havens with secrecy laws also needs to be attacked with the full force of the law.

Today, I would like to take a few minutes to try to cut through the haze of these schemes to see them for what they really are and explain what our bill would do to stop them. First, I will look at our investigation into abusive tax shelters and discuss the provisions we have included in this bill to combat them. Then, I will turn to tax haven abuses and our proposed remedies.

For three years, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been conducting an investigation into the design, sale, and implementation of abusive tax shelters. While I initiated this investigation when I was Chairman of our Subcommittee in 2002, it has since had the support of our new Chairman, Senator Coleman.

In November 2003, our Subcommittee held two days of hearings and released a report prepared by my staff that pulled back the curtain on how even some respected accounting firms, banks, investment advisors, and law firms had become the engines pushing the design and sale of abusive tax shelters to corporations and individuals across this country. In February 2005, the Subcommittee issued a report that provided further details on the role these professional firms played in the proliferation of these abusive shelters. Our Subcommittee report was endorsed by the full Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in April.

The Subcommittee investigation found that many abusive tax shelters were not dreamed up by the taxpayers who used them. Instead, most were devised by tax professionals, such as accountants, bankers, investment advisors, and lawyers, who then sold the tax shelter to clients for a fee. In fact, as our investigation widened, we found hordes of tax advisors cooking up one complex scheme after another, packaging them up as generic ``tax products'' with boiler-plate legal and tax opinion letters, and then undertaking elaborate marketing schemes to peddle these products to literally thousands of persons across the country. In return, these tax shelter promoters were getting hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, while diverting billions of dollars in tax revenues from the U.S. Treasury each year.

For example, one shelter investigated by the Subcommittee and featured in the November 2003 Subcommittee hearings has since become part of an IRS effort to settle cases involving a set of abusive tax shelters known as ``Son of Boss.'' To date, more than 1,200 taxpayers have admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay back taxes, interest and penalties totaling more than $3.7 billion. That's billions of dollars the IRS has collected on just one type of tax shelter, demonstrating both the depth of the problem and the potential for progress.

The Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act of 2005 that we are introducing today contains a number of measures to curb abusive tax shelters. The bill strengthens the penalties on promoters of abusive tax shelters. It codifies and strengthens the economic substance doctrine, which eliminates tax benefits for transactions that have no real business purpose apart from avoiding taxes. The bill deters banks' participation in abusive tax shelter activities by requiring regulators to develop new examination procedures to detect and stop such activities. It ends outdated communication barriers between key enforcement agencies to allow the exchange of information relating to tax evasion cases.

The bill also requires the Treasury Department to issue tougher standards for tax shelter opinion letters. It increases incentives for whistleblowers to report tax evasion to the IRS. The bill also provides for increased disclosure of tax shelter information to Congress. It simplifies and clarifies an existing prohibition on accountants being paid contingent fees which increase as phony tax losses increase. And it expresses the sense of the Senate that the IRS needs more funding to combat tax shelter abuses.

Let me be more specific about these key provisions to curb abusive tax shelters.

Title I of the bill strengthens two very important penalties that the IRS can use in its fight against the professionals who make these complex abusive shelters possible. A year ago, the penalty for promoting an abusive tax shelter, as set forth in Section 6700 of the tax code, was the lesser of $1,000 or 100 percent of the promoter's gross income derived from the prohibited activity. That meant in most cases the maximum fine was just $1,000.

Many abusive tax shelters sell for $100,000 or $250,000 apiece. Our investigation uncovered some tax shelters that were sold for as much as $2 million or even $5 million apiece, as well as instances in which the same cookie-cutter tax opinion letter was sold to 100 or even 200 clients. There are big bucks to be made in this business, and a $1,000 fine is laughable.

The Senate acknowledged that last year when it adopted the Levin- Coleman amendment to the JOBS Act, S. 1637, raising the Section 6700 penalty on abusive tax shelter promoters to 100 pefcent of the fees earned by the promoter from the abusive shelter. A 100 percent penalty would have ensured that the abusive tax shelter hucksters would not get to keep a single penny of their ill-gotten gains. That figure, however, was cut in half in the conference report, setting the penalty at 50 percent of the fees earned and allowing the promoters of abusive shelters get to keep half of their illicit profits.

While 50 percent is an obvious improvement over $1000, this penalty still

is inadequate and makes no sense. Why should anyone who pushes an illegal tax shelter that robs our Treasury of much needed revenues get to keep half of his ill-gotten gains? What deterrent effect is created by a penalty that allows promoters to keep half of their fees if caught, and of course, all of their fees if they are not caught? Tax shelter promoters ought to face a penalty that is at least as harsh as the penalty imposed on the person who purchased their tax product, not only because the promoter is usually as culpable as the taxpayer, but also so promoters think twice about pushing abusive tax schemes.

Effective penalties should make sure that the peddler of an abusive tax shelter is deprived of every penny of profit earned from selling or implementing the shelter and then is fined on top of that. Specifically, Section 101 of this bill would increase the penalty on tax shelter promoters to an amount up to the greater of either 150 percent of the promoters' gross income from the prohibited activity, or the amount assessed against the taxpayer--including back-taxes, interest and penalties.

A second penalty provision in the bill addresses what our investigation found to be one of the biggest problems: the knowing assistance of accounting firms, law firms, banks, and others to help taxpayers understate their taxes. In addition to those who meet the definition of ``promoters'' of abusive shelters, there are professional firms that aid and abet the use of abusive tax shelters and enable taxpayers to carry out the abusive tax schemes. For example, law firms are often asked to write ``opinion letters'' to help taxpayers head off IRS questioning and fines that they might otherwise confront for using an abusive shelter. Currently, under Section 6701 of the tax code, these aiders and abettors face a maximum penalty of only $1,000, or $10,000 if the offender is a corporation. This penalty, too, is a joke. When law firms are getting $50,000 for each of these cookie-cutter opinion letters, it provides no deterrent whatsoever. A $1,000 fine is like a jaywalking ticket for robbing a bank.

Section 102 of the bill would strengthen Section 6701 significantly, subjecting aiders and abettors to a maximum fine up to the greater of either 150 percent of the aider and abettor's gross income from the prohibited activity, or the amount assessed against the taxpayer for using the abusive shelter. This penalty would apply to all aiders and abettors not just tax return preparers.

Again, the Senate has recognized the need to toughen this critical penalty. In last year's JOBS Act, Senator Coleman and I successfully increased this fine to 100 percent of the gross income derived from the prohibited activity. Unfortunately, the conference report completely omitted this change, allowing aiders and abettors to continue to profit without penalty from their wrongdoing.

If further justification for toughening these penalties is needed, one document uncovered by our investigation shows the cold calculation engaged in by a tax advisor facing low fines. A senior tax professional at accounting giant KPMG compared possible tax shelter fees with possible tax shelter penalties if the firm were caught promoting an illegal tax shelter. This senior tax professional wrote the following: ``[O]ur average deal would result in KPMG fees of $360,000 with a maximum penalty exposure of only $31,000.'' He then recommended the obvious: going forward with sales of the abusive tax shelter on a cost- benefit basis.

Title III of the bill would strengthen legal prohibitions against abusive tax shelters by codifying in Federal tax statutes for the first time what is known as the economic substance doctrine. This anti-tax abuse doctrine was fashioned by federal courts evaluating transactions that appeared to have little or no business purpose or economic substance apart from tax avoidance. It has become a powerful analytical tool used by courts to invalidate abusive tax shelters. At the same time, because there is no statute underlying this doctrine and the courts have developed and applied it differently in different judicial districts, the existing case law has many ambiguities and conflicting interpretations.

Under the leadership of Senators Grassley and Baucus, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, the Senate has voted on multiple occasions to enact this economic substance provision, but the House conferees have rejected it each time. Since no tax shelter legislation would be complete without addressing this issue, Title III of this comprehensive bill proposes once more to include the economic substance doctrine in the tax code. I hope that with continued pressure, it will become law in this Congress.

The bill will also help fight abusive tax shelters that are disguised as complex investment opportunities and use financing or securities transactions provided by financial institutions. In reality, tax shelter schemes lack the economic risks and rewards associated with a true investment. These phony transactions instead often rely on the temporary use of significant amounts of money in low risk schemes mischaracterized as real investments. The financing or securities transactions called for by these schemes are often supplied by a bank, securities firm, or other financial institution.

Currently the tax code prohibits financial institutions from providing products or services that aid or abet tax evasion or that promote or implement abusive tax shelters. The agencies that oversee these financial institutions on a daily basis, however, are experts in banking and securities law and generally lack the expertise to spot tax issues. Section 202 would crack down on financial institutions' illegal tax shelter activities by requiring federal bank regulators and the SEC to work with the IRS to develop examination techniques to detect such abusive activities and put an end to them.

These examination techniques would be used at least every 2 years, preferably in combination with routine regulatory examinations, and the regulators would report potential violations to the IRS. The agencies would also be required to prepare joint reports to Congress in 2007 and 2010 on preventing the participation of financial institutions in tax evasion or tax shelter activities.

During hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on tax shelters in November 2003, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson testified that his agency was barred by Section 6103 of the tax code from communicating information to other federal agencies that would assist those agencies in their law enforcement duties. He pointed out that the IRS was barred from providing tax return information to the SEC, federal bank regulators, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)--even, for example, when that information might assist the SEC in evaluating whether an abusive tax shelter resulted in deceptive accounting in a public company's financial statements, might help the Federal Reserve determine whether a bank selling tax products to its clients had violated the law against promoting abusive tax shelters, or help the PCAOB judge whether an accounting firm had impaired its independence by selling tax shelters to its audit clients.

A recent example demonstrates how ill-conceived these information barriers are. A few months ago the IRS offered a settlement initiative to companies and corporate executives who participated in an abusive tax shelter involving the transfer of stock options to family- controlled entities. Over a hundred corporations and executives responded with admissions of wrongdoing. In addition to tax violations, their misconduct may be linked to securities law violations and improprieties by corporate auditors or banks, but the IRS has informed the Subcommittee that it is currently barred by law from sharing the names of the wrongdoers with the SEC, banking regulators, or PCAOB.

These communication barriers are outdated, inefficient, and ill- suited to stopping the torrent of tax shelter abuses now affecting or being promoted by so many public companies, banks, and accounting firms. To address this problem, Section 203 of this bill would authorize the Treasury Secretary, with appropriate privacy safeguards, to disclose to the SEC, Federal banking agencies, and the PCAOB, upon request, tax return information related to abusive tax shelters, inappropriate tax avoidance, or tax evasion. The

agencies could then use this information only for law enforcement purposes, such as preventing accounting firms or banks from promoting abusive tax shelters, or detecting accounting fraud in the financial statements of public companies.

Another finding of the Subcommittee investigation is that some tax practitioners are circumventing current State and Federal constraints on charging tax service fees that are dependent on the amount of promised tax benefits. Traditionally, accounting firms charged flat fees or hourly fees for their tax services. In the 1990s, however, they began charging ``value added'' fees based on, in the words of one accounting firm's manual, ``the value of the services provided, as opposed to the time required to perform the services.'' In addition, some firms began charging ``contingent fees'' that were calculated according to the size of the paper ``loss'' that could be produced for a client and used to offset the client's other taxable income--the greater the so-called loss, the greater the fee.

In response, many States prohibited accounting firms from charging contingent fees for tax work to avoid creating incentives for these firms to devise ways to shelter substantial sums. The SEC and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants also issued rules restricting contingent fees, allowing them in only limited circumstances. Recently, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board sent the SEC for approval a similar rule prohibiting public accounting firms from charging contingent fees for tax services provided to the public companies they audit. Each of these Federal, State, and professional ethics rules seeks to limit the use of contingent fees under certain, limited circumstances.

The Subcommittee investigation found that tax shelter fees, which are typically substantial and sometimes exceed $1 million, are often linked to the amount of a taxpayer's projected paper losses which can be used to shelter income from taxation. For example, in three tax shelters examined by the Subcommittee, documents show that the fees were equal to a percentage of the paper loss to be generated by the transaction. In one case, the fees were typically set at 7 percent of the transaction's generated ``tax loss'' that clients could use to reduce other taxable income. In other words, the greater the loss that could be concocted for the taxpayer or ``investor,'' the greater the profit for the tax promoter. Think about that--greater the loss, the greater the profit. How's that for turning capitalism on its head!

In addition, evidence indicated that, in at least one instance, a tax advisor was willing to deliberately manipulate the way it handled certain tax products to circumvent contingent fee prohibitions. An internal document at an accounting firm related to a specific tax shelter, for example, identified the States that prohibited contingent fees. Then, rather than prohibit the tax shelter transactions in those States or require an alternative fee structure, the memorandum directed the firm's tax professionals to make sure the engagement letter was signed, the engagement was managed, and the bulk of services was performed ``in a jurisdiction that does not prohibit contingency fees.''

Right now, the prohibitions on contingent fees are complex and must be evaluated in the context of a patchwork of Federal, State, and professional ethics rules. Section 201 of the bill would establish a single enforceable rule, applicable nationwide, that would prohibit tax practitioners from charging fees calculated according to a projected or actual amount of tax savings or paper losses.

Past laws, such as the Whistleblower Protection Act and qui tam lawsuits under the False Claims Act, demonstrate that individuals with inside information can help expose serious misconduct that the U.S. government might otherwise miss. The tax arena is no different. Persons with inside information can help expose millions of dollars in tax fraud if they are willing to step forward and tell the IRS what they know about specific instances of misconduct.

Under current law, potential whistleblowers with inside information about tax misconduct do not have an established IRS office that is sensitive to their concerns, provides consistent treatment, and oversees the calculation and payment of monetary rewards for important information. Section 206 of this bill, which is very similar to a provision developed by the Senate Finance Committee, would, among other measures, establish a Whistleblowers Office within the IRS, codify standards for the payment of monetary rewards, and exempt whistleblower monetary payments from the alternative minimum tax.

Each of these measures is intended to increase incentives for persons to blow the whistle on tax misconduct. The one key difference between our bill and the Finance Committee provision is that we would continue to give the IRS the discretion to determine the amount of money paid to an individual whistleblower; our bill would not enable whistleblowers to appeal to a court to obtain additional sums. The fact-specific analysis that goes into evaluating a whistleblower's assistance and calculating a reward makes court review inadvisable. The existence of an appeal also invites litigation and necessitates the expenditure of taxpayer dollars--not for tax enforcement but for a court dispute. The new Whistleblowers Office is intended to promote the consistent, equitable treatment of persons who report tax misconduct, without also inviting expensive and time-consuming litigation.

Section 205 of the bill would direct the Treasury Department to issue new standards for tax practitioners issuing opinion letters on the tax implications of potential tax shelters as part of Circular 230. The public has traditionally relied on tax opinion letters to obtain informed and trustworthy advice about whether a tax-motivated transaction meets the requirements of the law. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has found that, in too many cases, tax opinion letters no longer contain disinterested and reliable tax advice, even when issued by supposedly reputable accounting or law firms.

Instead, some tax opinion letters have become marketing tools used by tax shelter promoters and their allies to sell clients on their latest tax products. In many of these cases, financial interests and biases were concealed, unreasonable factual assumptions were used to justify dubious legal conclusions, and taxpayers were misled about the risk that the proposed transaction would later be designated an illegal tax shelter. Reforms are essential to address these abuses and restore the integrity of tax opinion letters.

The Treasury Department recently adopted standards that address a number of the abuses affecting tax shelter opinion letters; however, the standards do not take all the steps needed. Our bill would require Treasury to issue standards addressing a wider spectrum of tax shelter opinion letter problems, including: preventing concealed collaboration among supposedly independent letter writers; avoiding conflicts of interest that would impair auditor independence; ensuring appropriate fee charges; preventing practitioners and firms from aiding and abetting the understatement of tax liability by clients; and banning the promotion of potentially abusive tax shelters. By addressing each of these areas, a beefed-up Circular 230 could help reduce the ongoing abusive practices related to tax shelter opinion letters.

The bill would also provide for increased disclosure of tax shelter information to Congress. Section 204 would make it clear that companies providing tax return preparation services to taxpayers cannot refuse to comply with a Congressional document subpoena by citing Section 7216, a consumer protection provision that prohibits tax return preparers from disclosing taxpayer information to third parties. Several accounting and law firms raised this claim in response to document subpoenas issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, contending they were barred by the nondisclosure provision in Section 7216 from producing documents related to the sale of abusive tax shelters to clients for a fee.

The accounting and law firms maintained this position despite an analysis provided by the Senate legal counsel showing that the nondisclosure provision was never intended to create a privilege or to override a Senate subpoena, as demonstrated in federal regulations interpreting the provision. This

bill would codify the existing regulations interpreting Section 7216 and make it clear that Congressional document subpoenas must be honored.

Section 204 would also ensure Congress has access to information about decisions by Treasury related to an organization's tax exempt status. A 2003 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Tax Analysts v. IRS, struck down certain IRS regulations and held that the IRS must disclose letters denying or revoking an organization's tax exempt status. The IRS has been reluctant to disclose such information, not only to the public, but also to Congress, including in response to requests by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

For example, earlier this year the IRS revoked the tax exempt status of four credit counseling firms, and, despite the Tax Analysts case, claimed that it could not disclose to the Subcommittee the names of the four firms or the reasons for revoking their tax exemption. Our bill would make it clear that, upon receipt of a request from a Congressional committee or subcommittee, the IRS must disclose documents, other than a tax return, related to the agency's determination to grant, deny, revoke or restore an organization's exemption from taxation.

Section 208 of the bill would establish that it is the sense of the Senate that additional funds should be appropriated for IRS enforcement, and that the IRS should devote proportionately more of its enforcement funds to combat rampant tax shelter and tax haven abuses. Specifically, the bill would direct increased funding toward enforcement efforts combating the promotion of abusive tax shelters and the aiding and abetting of tax evasion; the involvement of accounting, law and financial firms in such promotion and aiding and abetting; and the use of offshore financial accounts to conceal taxable income.

Tax enforcement is an area where a relatively small increase in spending pays for itself many times over. If we would hire adequate enforcement personnel, close the tax loopholes, and put an end to tax dodges, tens of billions in revenues that should support this country would actually reach the Treasury.

In addition to abusive tax shelters, the bill addresses the abusive tax havens that help taxpayers dodge their U.S. tax obligations through using corporate, bank, and tax secrecy laws that impede U.S. tax enforcement. The London-based Tax Justice Network recently estimated that wealthy individuals worldwide have stashed $11.5 trillion of their assets in tax havens. At one Subcommittee hearing in 2001, a former owner of an offshore bank in the Cayman Islands testified that he believed 100 percent of his former clients were engaged in tax evasion. He said that almost all were from the United States and would take elaborate measures to avoid IRS detection of their money transfers. He also expressed confidence that the government that licensed his bank would vigorously defend client secrecy in order to continue attracting business to the islands.

Corporations are also using tax havens to reduce their U.S. tax liability. A GAO report I released with Senator Dorgan last year found that nearly two-thirds of the top 100 companies doing business with the United States government now have one or more subsidiaries in a tax haven. One company, Tyco International, had 115.

Data released by the Commerce Department further demonstrates the extent of U.S. corporate use of tax havens, indicating that, as of 2001, almost half of all foreign profits of U.S. corporations were in tax havens. A study released by the journal Tax Notes in September 2004 found that American companies were able to shift $149 billion of profits to 18 tax haven countries in 2002, up 68 percent from $88 billion in 1999. Estimates show that funneling these profits from the U.S. to tax havens deprives the U.S. Treasury of anywhere from $10 billion to $20 billion in lost tax revenue each year.

Here's just one simplified example of the gimmicks being used by corporations to transfer taxable income from the United States to tax havens to escape taxation. Suppose a profitable U.S. corporation establishes a shell corporation in a tax haven. The shell corporation has no office or employees, just a mailbox address. The U.S. parent transfers a valuable patent to the shell corporation. Then, the U.S. parent and all of its subsidiaries begin to pay a hefty fee to the shell corporation for use of the patent, shifting taxable income out of the United States to the shell corporation. The shell corporation declares a portion of the fees as profit, but pays no tax since it is a tax haven resident. The icing on the cake is that the shell corporation can then ``lend'' the income it has accumulated from the fees back to the U.S. companies for their use. The companies, in turn, pay ``interest'' on the ``loans'' to the shell corporation, shifting still more taxable income out of the United States to the tax haven. This example highlights just a few of the tax haven ploys being used by some U.S. corporations to escape paying their fair share of taxes here at home.

Sections 401 and 402 of our bill tackle the issue of tax havens by removing U.S. tax benefits associated with jurisdictions that fail to cooperate with U.S. tax enforcement efforts. Dozens of jurisdictions around the world have enacted corporate, bank, and tax secrecy laws that, in too many cases, have been used to justify failing to provide timely information to U.S. officials investigating tax misconduct. Some tax havens have refused to provide timely information about persons suspected of either hiding funds in the jurisdiction's offshore bank accounts or using offshore corporations and deceptive transactions to disguise their income or create phony losses to shelter their U.S. income from taxation.

Section 401 of the bill would give the Treasury Secretary the discretion to designate such an offshore tax haven as ``uncooperative'' and to publish an annual list of these uncooperative tax havens. We intend that the Treasury Secretary will develop this list by evaluating the actual record of cooperation experienced by the United States in its dealings with specific jurisdictions around the world. While many offshore tax havens have signed treaties with the United States promising to cooperate with U.S. civil and criminal tax enforcement, the level of resulting cooperation varies. For example, after one country signed a tax treaty with the United States, the government that led the effort was voted out of office by treaty opponents. Treasury needs a way to ensure that tax treaty obligations are met and to send a message to jurisdictions that impede U.S. tax enforcement. This bill gives Treasury the tools it needs to get the cooperation it needs.

Under Sections 401 and 402 of the bill, persons doing business in tax havens designated by Treasury as uncooperative would be denied U.S. tax benefits and incur increased disclosure requirements. First, the bill would disallow the tax benefits of deferral and foreign tax credits for income attributed to an uncooperative tax haven. Second, taxpayers would be required to provide greater disclosure of their activities, including disclosing on their returns any payment above $10,000 to a person or account located in a designated haven. These restrictions would not only deter U.S. taxpayers from doing business with uncooperative tax havens, they would also provide the United States with powerful weapons to convince tax havens to cooperate fully with U.S. tax enforcement efforts and help end offshore tax evasion abuses.

Sections 403 and 404 further address offshore tax evasion. Section 403 would toughen penalties on eligible taxpayers who did not participate in Treasury programs designed to encourage voluntary disclosure of previously unreported income placed by the taxpayer in offshore accounts and accessed by credit card or other financial arrangements. Section 404 would authorize Treasury to promulgate regulations to stop ongoing foreign tax credit abuses in which, among other schemes, taxpayers claim credit on their U.S. tax returns for paying foreign taxes, but then fail to report the income related to those foreign taxes. Under the leadership of Senators Grassley and Baucus, both Sections 403 and 404 passed the Senate earlier this year as part of the Highway Bill, H.R. 3, but were dropped in conference.

The eyes of some people may glaze over when tax shelters and tax havens are discussed, but unscrupulous taxpayers and tax professionals see illicit

dollar signs. Our commitment to crack down on their tax abuses must be as strong as their determination to get away with ripping off America and American taxpayers.

Our bill provides our government the tools to end the use of abusive tax shelters and uncooperative tax havens and to punish the powerful professionals who push them.

It's long past time for Congress to act to end the shifting of a disproportionate tax burden onto the shoulders of honest Americans.

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

Mr. President, it's an honor to join our Democratic Leader and so many of our colleagues in introducing the Affordable Health Care Act.

This legislation states our strong commitment as Democrats to end the crisis in health care that affects every family. It's a down payment on our commitment to quality, affordable health care for every American, and we

will not rest until that goal is achieved.

The worsening crisis in health care is caused by skyrocketing costs, declining insurance coverage, and less security for every family. Businesses--especially small businesses--find it increasingly difficult to provide decent coverage for their employees. Companies struggling with foreign competition are at an every-larger competitive disadvantage because of their constantly rising costs.

Last year, the percentage of the Nation's gross domestic product devoted to health was 15.5%, the highest in our history. Since 2000, annual spending on health care has risen from $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion, an increase of almost half a trillion dollars in just four years.

Even worse, insurance premiums have soared by 59 percent during those four years. The cost of insurance for a family has risen by almost $3,000. Last year, the cost of the premiums for family coverage averaged $10,000, and was much higher for many families.

Drug costs are also out of control. According to current data, they rose 47 percent in the first three years of the Bush Administration. Too many patients are cutting the pills their doctors prescribe in half or going without them altogether, because they can't afford the drugs they need to treat or prevent disease.

Even Medicare premiums are out of control. The largest premium increase in Medicare's history went into effect just three weeks ago. Since President Bush took office, Medicare premiums have climbed by 72 percent. Senior citizens, with an average income of $15,000, now have to pay almost $1,000 a year for their Part B premiums under Medicare. The recent report of the Medicare trustees included the stunning revelation that Medicare cost sharing and premiums will soon eat up more than 40 percent of the total Social Security benefit of the typical 85 year old.

As a proportion of Gross Domestic Product spent on health care, America is first in the world by a large margin. We spend 30 percent more than the Swiss who are number two, a third more than the Germans, fifty percent more than the French and the Canadians, and seventy-eight percent more than the Japanese.

These extraordinarily high levels of health spending might be justified if they produced dramatically better health care for the American people. But they don't. Among the world's leading industrialized countries, the United States ranks 22nd in average life expectancy and 25th in infant mortality.

We also face a worsening crisis of the uninsured. Since President Bush took office, the number of uninsured Americans has increased by a shameful million a year. Today, 45 million Americans have no coverage. Between 2001 and 2004, five million jobs offering health insurance were lost.

Even these figures understate the problem. Over a two-year period, 82 million Americans--one out of every three non-elderly Americans--will be uninsured for a significant period of time.

Tragically, eight and a half million children are uninsured and may well be denied the opportunity for a healthy start in life that should be the birthright of every child. Even people who have health insurance today cannot count on it being there for them tomorrow. No American family is more than one pink slip or one employer decision away from being uninsured.

The uninsured are vulnerable not only to unaffordable costs, but to substandard or health care or no care at all. In any given year, one- third of the uninsured go without needed medical care. Two hundred seventy thousand children suffering from asthma never see a doctor. Three hundred fifty thousand children with recurrent earaches never see a doctor. Three hundred fifty thousand children with severe sore throats never see a doctor.

Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured women not to receive medical treatment until their cancer has spread too far, and they are 50 percent more likely to die of the disease.

Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without life- saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty--because they are uninsured.

The bottom line is that whether the disease is AIDS or mental illness or cancer or heart disease or diabetes, the uninsured are left out and left behind. In hospital and out, young or old, black or brown or white, they receive less care, suffer more, and are 25 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who have insurance.

Even for those with insurance, the quality of health care is often needlessly compromised. Recent events cast serious doubt on the FDA's ability to respond promptly when drugs it has approved turn out to have dangerous side effects. By some estimates, tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths have resulted.

The lack of coordination in our system results in duplicative, costly, and often counterproductive tests and procedures. The Midwest Business Group on Health estimates that the cost of poor quality care to employers providing health insurance coverage is $2,000 per worker, and it's paid in the form of higher insurance premiums. A recent study found that for many serious illnesses, patients are as likely to receive substandard care as they are to receive care meeting accepted professional standards.

In the face of this massive crisis in health care, the Administration and Congress have been missing in action for too long. The Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress defend the special interests that profit from the status quo and ignore the suffering of the millions of families victimized by their neglect.

Reports suggest in fact that the Administration's new budget will propose to cut Medicaid, which provides health care for more than 50 million of the poorest of the poor. The deficit must be addressed--but it was created by the Administration's tax breaks for the wealthy, and the poor and the sick should not have to bear the burden of reducing it. That's the wrong priority and the wrong values.

The legislation we are offering today will not solve all these problems, but it is a good start, and we are committed to finishing the job.

The Affordable Health Care Act guarantees that every child in America will have quality health care coverage.

It reduces health costs substantially, by making FDA-approved drugs available at the same fair prices available to Canadians and Europeans, rather than the inflated prices charged to U.S. patients.

It takes a giant step toward adoption of modern information technology in health care, which has the potential to dramatically improve the quality of care and dramatically reduce its cost--by as much as $140 billion a year. It also improves quality by giving the FDA additional authority to monitor the safety of approved drugs.

It addresses the special burden faced by small businesses by offering tax credits to reduce the premiums they pay to cover their employees. It also establishes a demonstration program in 25 cities to see if a successful program in Michigan to expand insurance coverage for small businesses can be replicated elsewhere. Finally, our bill includes a sense of the Senate resolution to put Congress firmly on record against destructive cuts in Medicaid.

Affordable health care is a high priority for every family, and it should be an equally high priority for this Congress. We face a crisis, and it is time to act. Senate Democrats are committed to guaranteeing the basic right to health care for all Americans, and when we say ``all'', we mean ``all''.

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

Mr. President, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress are no friend of America's seniors. In 2003, they enacted legislation to dismantle Medicare, even though Medicare has helped a generation of seniors live their golden years with health and dignity.

Now their target is Social Security. They want to privatize this trusted program for the benefit of Wall Street bankers. They even want to cut benefits for women because--in the Republican view--they live too long. It's time to end these shameful attacks on our senior citizens, restore Medicare and protect Social Security.

I commend the leadership of my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, and our Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, in introducing this urgently needed legislation today to enable Medicare to keep its promise to the elderly.

Forty years ago, Congress enacted the landmark legislation that established Medicare. We would do well today to remember President Lyndon Johnson's words on signing that historic bill in 1965: ``No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years.''

The ruinous Medicare legislation that the Republican Congress enacted in 2003 breaks that solemn promise.

Before Medicare was created, millions of seniors could obtain health care coverage only at the whim of the insurance industry. If they were too sick or too poor to be profitable to an insurance company, they would be denied health care coverage. Their savings--and their children's savings--were in jeopardy when illness struck. Before Medicare, senior citizens were among the poorest Americans, with almost three in ten living in poverty. Bankruptcies from overwhelming medical bills were common.

Medicare changed all that, and 40 years later, President Bush and the Republican Congress are wrong to try to turn back the clock.

Some of my colleagues attempt to portray Medicare as a failure. But the facts show that it is one of the most successful endeavors the Nation has ever undertaken. In 1963, before Medicare was enacted, almost half of America's seniors were uninsured. Today that number is one in a hundred.

Before Medicare was enacted, Americans turning 65 could expect to live another 14 years. Today, they can expect almost 18 more years.

Seniors understand that Medicare works. They don't want to return to the days when they had to gamble their health, their savings and their lives on risky private insurance.

The 2003 Republican bill was sold to the American people as a way to help seniors with the high cost of prescription drugs, so you might think it does something about the high cost of drugs. But it doesn't.

It not only fails to help Medicare lower the cost of drugs--it actually makes it illegal for Medicare to try. Republicans were so worried about protecting drug company profits that they made it illegal for Medicare to do what

the Veterans Administration does for veterans--negotiate discounts on drug prices. The Bush Administration and the GOP Congress wouldn't dare to prohibit the VA from doing that for the veterans, and they shouldn't do it for senior citizens either.

The discounts on drug prices for veterans are substantial. On average, the price paid by the VA is 45 percent of the retail price, but often, the savings are even more dramatic. The retail price for Mevacor is $4 a pill, but the VA pays only 23 cents. The undiscounted price of Zantac is $1.83, but the VA pays two cents.

Senator Dayton's legislation abolishes the unconscionable provision that bars Medicare from negotiating discounts on drug prices for America's seniors. That's not price control--it's common sense.

Republicans also claim that their new drug benefit is ``voluntary.'' Not exactly. If seniors don't sign up the first year, they have to pay more and more to join in subsequent years. When they need the coverage, they may not be able to afford it.

Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this flagrant system of fines and makes the Medicare drug program truly voluntary. When Congress enacts it, seniors will be able to sign up for the drug program without facing ruinous fines.

Good prescription drug coverage for senior citizens is a priority for Democrats. For the Administration and the Republicans in Congress, however, tax cuts for billionaires are more important than health care for senior citizens.

In addition, the 2003 Medicare law leaves too many elderly citizens with unaffordable costs. Seniors with moderate incomes and high drug expenses still face high drug costs. The benefits under the GOP law-- with its $250 deductible, 25 percent cost-sharing, an out-of-pocket limit of $3,600 on costs, but continued co-payment obligations even after the limit is reached--are far less generous than those enjoyed by most younger Americans, even though the elderly's need for prescription drugs is much greater.

Senior citizens with an income of $15,000 and drug expenses of $4,000 would have to pay more than $2,900, including premiums, out of their own pocket. That's too heavy a burden.

If they fall into the so-called doughnut hole, their situation is much worse. Under the 2003 law, the government makes no contribution to any drug costs between $2,250 in expenditures and $5,100 in expenditures. Patients who need $5,200 worth of prescriptions could be forced to pay $2,850 in drug expenses without any help at all from Medicare. That's too much for an elderly person to pay and still meet other essential medical needs, pay the rent or mortgage, and buy food and other necessities of life.

Senator Dayton's proposal begins to fill in that doughnut hole by not allowing the cap on total out of pocket expenditures to rise year after year, as it does under the GOP act. Under Senator Dayton's proposal, seniors will have the certainty of knowing where that limit is from one year to the next. As drug expenses rise, more seniors will gain the benefit of the assistance from Medicare at these high spending levels, and ultimately, the doughnut hole will close.

The Republican Medicare law is a raw deal for seniors, but it's a bonanza for the drug industry and the insurance industry.

It gives massive subsidies to HMOs. Most Americans probably think it's the job of insurance companies to guarantee the health of their beneficiaries, but according to the Republican view that's wrong. They make America's seniors guarantee the health and wealth of HMOs.

The government already pays private insurance plans 104 percent of what it costs Medicare to provide seniors with the same health care. Republicans claim to be in favor of competition, but the playing field is tilted toward HMOs, and their 2003 Act tilted it further. You might think HMOs need that overpayment because they serve sicker or needier beneficiaries. Not true. Enrollees in private plans are actually healthier than those in Medicare, resulting in a further bonus of 8.7 percent to the private plans.

Senator Dayton's legislation requires realistic risk adjustment for private plans that provide services to seniors under Medicare. It removes the artificial calculations that inflate payments to HMOs and other private insurance carriers.

Another problem with the 2003 Act is that if the subsidies don't provide enough profits, the Republican bill provides cash handouts for the insurance industry. If an HMO doesn't think it can make enough money in some area of the country, the Bush Administration can simply ladle out the cash--up to $12 billion a year--until the bribe is high enough to get the company to participate.

Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this outrageous giveaway and ensures that the dollars devoted to this slush fund are used instead to provide better health care for seniors.

The Republican law stacks the deck against seniors in other ways. It allows a region to be served by only one prescription drug plan, along with a PPO. That gives the drug plan a monopoly in that region for seniors who want to remain in Medicare. If the only available drug plan is tailored to the healthiest and youngest seniors, it might be acceptable for a senior whose prescription needs are limited. But it gives no help to seniors who take medications for multiple chronic conditions every day. Seniors have no real recourse if they can't afford the monopoly drug plan. The only way they can get prescription drug coverage is to enroll in the PPO.

Senator Dayton's legislation provides an effective guarantee that seniors who wish to remain in traditional Medicare will have a genuine choice of prescription-only plans. If a choice between at least two private drug-only plans is not available in any region, the Federal Government will provide a plan. This proposal ensures that any senior who wishes to remain in Medicare will have access to high-quality affordable prescription drug coverage.

The Republican Medicare law also dealt a harsh blow to the employer plans that millions of retirees depend on. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that almost three million retirees will lose their current drug coverage, because employers will drop the coverage when retirees become eligible for the new federal benefit, which is not as comprehensive.

Democrats fought to include provisions in that flawed legislation to help employers maintain the good coverage that so many Americans depend on to meet their needs in retirement. Sadly, some employers could abuse these subsidies by failing to use them to assist their employees--and the Bush Administration is letting them get away with it. Toothless enforcement and weak regulation allow some unscrupulous employers to pocket the subsidy and weaken the coverage.

Senator Dayton's legislation will put an end to this scandalous practice by requiring employers to account for the funds they receive in subsidies. No longer will employers be able to hide that they are accepting subsidies to maintain retiree health coverage and still cut back the coverage. The Dayton bill also requires new research on ways to help employers maintain retiree coverage.

One of the most troubling aspects of the 2003 Act is that it victimizes six million senior citizens and disabled people on Medicaid--the poorest of the poor. Their out-of-pocket payments for drugs will be raised, even though they do not even have coverage for the drugs they need the most.

Today, under Federal law, people with drug coverage under Medicaid may be charged only nominal amounts for the drugs they need. The vast majority of states charge nothing.

For every other Medicare benefit, Medicaid wraps around Medicare coverage and picks up the out-of-pocket costs that Medicare does not pay. Not under this legislation. States are prohibited from wrapping around the Medicare benefits with their Medicaid program. Instead, a uniform Federal co-payment is imposed. It is indexed, so that it increases every year. If low income seniors need a drug that is not in the insurance company formulary, they have to go through a burdensome appeals process. Most will simply go without the drug they need.

The people we are talking about are truly the poorest of the poor. In most cases, their incomes are well below poverty. And the impact of even small

co-payments is devastating. Study after study finds that when the poor have to pay more for drugs, they end up hospitalized, in nursing homes, or dead.

Senator Dayton's legislation reverses this cruel provision and allows States to delay implementing the requirement that the new Medicare provisions must immediately supplant State Medicaid programs for the poorest of the poor.

Congress should be helping seniors with the burden of high drug costs, not allowing a right wing agenda to destroy the guarantee of affordable health care that America's seniors deserve and expect.

That's why Senator Dayton and Senator Reid have introduced this needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I'm honored to join my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry, in introducing this legislation to guarantee affordable health insurance for every child. We made a good start toward this goal in the 1990s, by enacting the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover more low-income children. Now it is time to finish the job.

Twelve million Americans who are twenty-one years old or younger have no health insurance today. Seven million are already eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, but five million are not eligible for these current programs.

Every uninsured child represents a national failure. Every uninsured child is at risk for losing the healthy start in life that should be birthright of every American. Every uninsured child is a potential source of heartbreak for parents and other loved ones. Every uninsured child is an American tragedy waiting to happen.

This year, three hundred eighty thousand children suffering from asthma will never see a doctor. Five hundred thousand children with recurrent earaches will never see a doctor. Five hundred thousand children with severe sore throats will never see a doctor.

Uninsured children pay for their lack of coverage in human suffering, unnecessary disability, and even death, and our society pays too. Sick children cannot learn. Every child whose education is limited or whose future potential is lost because of avoidable illness is a loss to America, because America's children are America's future.

The legislation we are introducing today will guarantee coverage for every child twenty-one years of age or younger. It makes health insurance affordable for every family, but it also asks families to share the responsibility of covering their children, when they are able to do so.

The bill expands Medicaid and CHIP up to 300 percent of poverty. Families of moderate means will be able to obtain subsidized coverage for their children. Families with incomes above 300 percent of poverty will be able to buy into Medicaid or CHIP for their children, and they will be guaranteed that the cost will not exceed 5 percent of their family income.

The bill also lifts the cap on CHIP funding that has caused some States to limit enrollment. It assists States financially by shifting current State spending for children under 100 percent of poverty to the Federal government. It requires all States to adopt the proven methods that encourage families to enroll and stay enrolled--methods such as presumptive eligibility, the ability to apply on-line or by telephone for the coverage, and coverage for at least twelve months without eligibility redeterminations.

This legislation is vitally important to all children. It is a pledge that they will have access to good health care without regard to their family's wealth. It is a commitment to a healthy start in life for every child.

As important as those objectives are, the significance of this legislation goes beyond coverage of all children. It is a major step toward the day when the basic right to health care will be a reality for every American, whatever their age or income. We will not rest until that goal is achieved, and I commend Senator Kerry for leading this essential effort.