Federal Criminal Immigration Courts Act of 2007

Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing the ``Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2007.'' This legislation will update our depreciation system so that it can keep pace with new technology.

Last July the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Long-Term Growth and Debt Reduction, on which Senator Smith was Chairman and I served as Ranking Member, held a hearing on updating our depreciation system. During the hearing, we heard that the current depreciation system is out of date and that changes should be made.

Our tax system allows, as a current expense, a depreciation deduction that represents a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used, or of property held for the production of income. Since 1981, the depreciation deduction for most tangible property has been under rules specified in section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, or MACRS, specified under section 168 applies to most new investment in tangible property. MACRS depreciation allowances are computed by determining a recovery period called a ``class life'' and an applicable recovery method for each asset.

The current depreciation system has not kept pace with technological advances. Several industries were not even contemplated when class lives were assigned in 1981, and some class lives even date back to 1962.

In the 1980's it would have been difficult to imagine what our reliance on computer and wireless technology would be today. At that time, the wireless industry was in its infancy, and there was no specifically assigned life for wireless equipment. As a result, today's depreciation system is like playing ``audit roulette.'' There is no certainty in how these assets should be depreciated.

All this matters because it impacts investment, innovation, competitiveness, and ultimately the quality and quantity of jobs in America. My home state of Massachusetts is a leader in the high tech industry. Massachusetts employs hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in key technology sectors, including computer hardware, life sciences, software, medical products, semiconductor, defense technology and telecommunications. We have learned in Massachusetts that a strategic tax policy can have a positive effect on economic competitiveness.

For these reasons, we are reintroducing the ``Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2007.'' This legislation makes four important changes to the current depreciation system.

First, the legislation creates a process that provides the Department of Treasury with the authority to modernize class lives. The Secretary of the Treasury will prescribe regulations to provide a new class life for certain eligible property. Eligible property does not include residential rental property, nonresidential real property, or property for which Congress has specifically legislated the recovery period.

The purpose of this provision is to provide Treasury with a mechanism to modify class lives that reasonably reflect the anticipated useful life and the anticipated decline in value over time of the property to the industry, and take into account when the property becomes technologically or functionally obsolete to perform its original purpose. Treasury will also have the authority to modify class lives in order to more accurately reflect economic depreciation. For example, a personal computer has a depreciable life of five years, but it has an economic life of only 2 to 3 years. Even though a computer can be used for five years, it becomes economically obsolete after a couple of years because of the newer, faster, and more advanced computers on the market.

Our depreciation system has not been adequately updated since Congress revoked Treasury's rule making authority in 1988. When the MACRS system was enacted in 1986, Congress directed Treasury to establish an office to monitor and analyze the actual experience with class lives and to modify class lives if the new class life reasonably reflected the anticipated useful life and the anticipated decline in value over time of the property to the industry. The authority was then revoked because Congress did not agree with all of the decisions made by Treasury.

The authority provided in this legislation addresses this previous problem by requiring Treasury to consult with Congress 60 days prior to publishing any proposed regulations. In addition, the Congressional Review Act would apply to any regulation proposed by Treasury and each class life prescribed by Treasury would be considered a separate rule.

Providing Treasury with the authority to modify class lives would allow the process to move more efficiently than allowing Congress to make piecemeal changes to the current depreciation system. Congress would provide guidelines, and Treasury would have the role of administering those guidelines. Under the legislation, Treasury would monitor and analyze the actual experience of depreciable assets and report their findings to Congress. We expect Treasury to establish guidelines that will take into consideration the fact that some assets lose a significant percentage of their original value in

the early part of their lives. This legislation specifically provides consultation with Congress in order for Congress to continue to have a role in this important tax policy issue.

We do not expect Treasury within the first year or two to review all classes of assets. Rather, we expect Treasury to begin with new assets that do no fit into the system, assets that have undergone technological advances, and existing assets that do not really fit into the current system. For example, the current system creates an irrational result for fiber optic lines. The class life of a fiber optic line depends upon whether it is used for one-way or two-way communications.

Second, the legislation would eliminate the mid-quarter convention. The placed-in-service conventions determine the point in time during the year that the property is considered ``placed in service'' and this determines when depreciation for an asset begins or ends. Under current law, there are the half-year, mid-month, and mid-quarter conventions. The mid-quarter convention is a source of complexity because it requires an analysis of the depreciable basis of property placed in service during the last three months of any taxable year. The Joint Committee on Taxation recommended the elimination of the mid-quarter convention in its 2001 recommendations on simplifying the Federal tax system. The calculation of the mid-quarter convention is burdensome, and it requires taxpayers to wait until after the end of the taxable year to determine whether the proper placed-in-service convention was used to calculate depreciation for assets during the taxable year.

Third, the legislation would allow taxpayers to elect to use mass asset accounting for assets with a cost of less than $10,000. Generally, taxpayers calculate depreciation on an item-by-item basis. The bill would allow taxpayers to elect to use mass asset accounting for all assets with the same recovery period. This provision will help simplify the recordkeeping associated with depreciation.

Fourth, the legislation would permanently extend increased expensing for small businesses. In lieu of depreciation, a taxpayer with a small amount of annual investment may elect to deduct such costs. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 increased the amount a taxpayer may deduct from $25,000 to $100,000 and increased the total amount of investment a business can make in a year and still qualify for expensing from $200,000 to $400,000. In addition, the Act allows off-the-shelf computer software to be eligible for the provision.

The Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2007 would make the $100,000 and $400,000 amounts permanent and index them for inflation. Off-the-shelf computer software would be eligible for the provision. Increased expensing for small businesses helps lower the cost of capital for mall businesses and eliminates complicated recordkeeping. In addition, it should reduce administrative costs for small businesses.

The four components of this legislation will result in updating and simplifying the current depreciation system. The Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2007 will provide certainty for taxpayers and put an end to ``audit roulette.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that authorizes the Federal judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference for our U.S. District Courts that are overloaded with immigration cases.

For a year, I have been telling the Senate about the crisis on our Southwest border involving judges who are overwhelmed by the sheer number of immigration cases that are filed in their courts.

New caseload numbers have recently become available, and it is clear that this problem is not going away--Congress must act to fix it. Federal Court Management Statistics available at www.uscourts.gov reveal that for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2006, four District Courts each had more than one thousand criminal immigration filings. Not surprisingly, all of these Districts share a border with Mexico.

In fiscal year 2006, the Southern District of Texas had 3,679 immigration cases, the Western District of Texas had 2,324 immigration cases, the District of New Mexico had 1,940 immigration cases, and the District of Arizona had 1,924 immigration filings. In each of these Districts, immigration filings make up more than forty-nine percent of all of the District's criminal filings. No other District Court recommended for new judgeships had more than 314 immigration filings. In fact, the four Districts mentioned above account for more than 60 percent of all immigration filings in fiscal year 2006.

The legislation I am introducing today authorizes the ten new Federal judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference for these four U.S. Districts, where immigration filings total more than forty-nine percent of all Federal criminal filings.

Based on these caseloads, we should already have given these Districts new judgeships. But to increase border security and immigration enforcement efforts, as we have over the past few years, without equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they will face as a result of immigration enforcement efforts would amount to willful negligence on the part of Congress.

It is imperative to equip our Federal agencies with the assets they need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, including the Federal District courts that try repeat immigration law violators who are charged with Federal felonies.

The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a letter in May of 2006 about the situation her District faces. Judge Vazquez wrote:

As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this District

is considerable. This District ranks first among all

districts in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal

filings compared to the national average of 87. As in all

federal districts along the southwest border, the majority of

cases filed in this District relate to immigration offenses

under United States Code, Title 8 and drug offenses arising

under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for

eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New

Mexico. . . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration

felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year

2005, the number of immigration felony filings increased to

1,826, which is an increase of 661 percent.

The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden on our Southwest border District Courts. An April 17, 2006 article entitled ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated:

U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe

oversees a court that faces a rising caseload from illegal

border crossings and related crime. And help from Washington

is by no means certain. . . . From Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept.

30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the caseload in the

New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 percent,

from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126

felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the

entire 10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas,

Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go

before an immigration judge, and the subjects are deported.

But people deported once and caught crossing illegally again

can be charged with a felony. And that brings the

defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases

driving up New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many

as 90 defendants crowd the courtroom in Las Cruces . . .

The same problems are afflicting federal border courts in

Arizona, California, and Texas.

Similar problems were documented in the May 23, 2006 Reuters article ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said:

President George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of

National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border could spark a

surge in immigration cases and U.S. courts are ill prepared

to handle them . . . Even without the stepped-up security at

the border, federal courts in southern California, Arizona,

New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a

spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial

districts, out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of

all criminal cases moving through U.S. courts. . . Most

immigrants caught crossing illegally are ordered out of the

country without prosecution. But that still leaves a growing

pile of cases involving illegals who are being prosecuted

after being caught multiple times or those accused of other

crimes. . . Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of

87 cases a year. But along the southern border, even before

Bush's plan moves forward, the average is around 300 per

judge, Carelli said.

I have also heard first-hand about this problem from Federal judges in New Mexico, including one who travels almost 200 miles to hear cases in Southern New Mexico. Many of the situations he sees involve mass arraignments because there are so many defendants in the system. He is not alone in this arrangement; other Federal judges drive almost 300 miles to hear cases in the Southern part of my home State. This is a dire situation that must be addressed.

The United States Congress must address the overwhelming immigration caseload our southwestern border U.S. District Courts face. The bill I am introducing today does that by authorizing the eight permanent and two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference for the four U.S. Districts in which the immigration caseloads total more than forty-nine percent of those Districts' total criminal caseload. I am proud to have Congressman Cuellar join me in this effort by introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Albuquerque Indian School Act. I want to thank Senator Bingaman, my colleague from New Mexico, for joining me as a cosponsor of the bill again this Congress.

The Albuquerque Indian School Act seeks to take two parcels of Federal land into trust for the 19 Pueblos--Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Ohkay Owingeh, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Taos, Tesuque, Zia and Zuni. I believe this property, if transferred, would receive greater utilization and would benefit the 19 New Mexico Pueblos.

In 1981, the New Mexico Pueblos petitioned the United States for the transfer of approximately 44 acres from the Albuquerque Indian School site for the purpose of economic development. In 1984, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior conveyed 44 acres to the Pueblos. This land is currently under development by the 19 New Mexico pueblos. In 2003, the 19 Pueblos requested conveyance of the ``B'' and ``D'' tracts, which total approximately 18 acres, located near Interstate 40. This land contains various metal buildings which have deteriorated to the point that they have little to no usable value at this time.

The return of these two properties to the 19 Pueblos is supported by the southwestern regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. With the addition of these two tracts, the 19 pueblos will be able to continue their successful economic development of the Albuquerque Indian School property. I believe the transfer will benefit the 19 New Mexico Pueblos, and their individual tribal members.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with Senator Salazar a very important piece of legislation, ``The No Child Left Behind Reform Act.'' This legislation makes three basic changes to the No Child Left Behind Act which was signed into law in January of 2002.

Five years ago I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I care about improving the quality of education in America for all of our children. I believed that this law would help to achieve that goal by establishing rigorous measures of student achievement, by helping teachers do a better job of instructing students, and by providing the resources desperately needed by our schools for even the most basic necessities to help put the reforms we passed into place.

Regrettably, the high hopes that I and many others had for this law have not been realized. Throughout the years, this law has been implemented by the administration in a manner that is inflexible, unreasonable and unhelpful. As a result, it has failed the teachers, the schools, and, most importantly, the students it was meant to help.

Worse still, this administration's promise of sufficient resources to implement the law is a promise that has yet to be kept. This year's budget proposal underfunds No Child Left Behind by almost $15 billion. Since passage five years ago, the administration has underfunded the law by more than $70 billion below the level promised when the President signed the Act into law.

As a result of the failures of the current administration to fulfill its commitment to our Nation's school children under this law, children and their teachers are shouldering noteworthy hardships. Additional requirements without additional funding, and little,

if any, technical assistance from the Department, have left students, teachers, administrators and parents struggling to implement mandates that are often confusing, inflexible, unrealistic and costly. With the degree of underfunding that we have seen at the Federal level, many taxpayers are simultaneously paying for their mortgage, basic health care, the rising cost of their children's tuition and the Federal share of the No Child Left Behind Act.

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, resources without reforms are a waste of money. By the same token, reforms without resources are a false promise a false promise that has left students and their teachers grappling with new burdens and little help to bear them.

The legislation I am introducing today proposes to make three changes to the No Child Left Behind Act. These changes will ease current burdens on our students, our teachers and our administrators without dismantling the fundamental underpinnings of the law.

First, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to be given credit for performing well on measures other than test scores when calculating student achievement. Test scores are an important measure of student knowledge. However, they are not the only measure. There are others. These include dropout rates, the number of students who participate in advanced placement courses, and individual student improvement over time. Unfortunately, current law does not allow schools to use these additional ways to gauge school success in a constructive manner. Additional measures can only be used to further indicate how a school is failing, not how a school is succeeding. This legislation will allow schools to earn credit for succeeding.

Second, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act will allow schools to target school choice and supplemental services to the students that actually demonstrate a need for them. As the current law is being implemented by the Administration, if a school is in need of improvement, it is expected to offer school choice and supplemental services to all students--even if not all students have demonstrated a need for them. That strikes me as a wasteful and imprecise way to help a school improve student performance. For that reason, this legislation will allow schools to target resources to the students that actually demonstrate that they need them. Clearly, this is the most efficient way to maximize their effect.

Finally, the No Child Left Behind Reform Act introduces a greater degree of reasonableness to the teacher certification process. As it is being implemented, the law requires teachers to be ``highly qualified'' to teach every subject that they teach. Certainly none of us disagree with this policy as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice, it is causing confusion and hardship for teachers, particularly secondary teachers and teachers in small school districts. For example, as the law is being implemented by the Administration, a high school science teacher could be required to hold degrees in biology, physics and chemistry to be considered highly qualified. In small schools where there may be only one 7th or 8th grade teacher teaching all subjects, these teachers could similarly be required to hold degrees in every subject area. Such requirements are unreasonable at a time when excellent teachers are increasingly hard to find. The legislation I introduce today will allow States to create a single assessment to cover multiple subjects for middle grade level teachers and allow states to issue a broad certification for science and social studies.

In my view, the changes I propose will provide significant assistance to schools struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind law all across America. As time marches on and more deadlines set by this law come and go including additional testing, a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and 100 percent proficiency for all students--we have a responsibility to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act in a manner that will require it to be implemented in a fair and reasonable manner. I would caution that in doing so, however, we must also preserve the basic tenets of the law--providing a high quality education for all American students and closing the achievement gap across demographic and socioeconomic lines. Again, no child should left behind--no special education student, no English language learning student, no minority student and no low-income student. I stand by this commitment.

Obviously, funding this law is beyond the scope of this bill. I would note, however, that I will continue my efforts to direct increased funds to the law. Clearly, our children deserve the resources needed to make their dreams for a better education a reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important reform legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that authorizes the Federal judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference for our U.S. District Courts that are overloaded with immigration cases.

For a year, I have been telling the Senate about the crisis on our Southwest border involving judges who are overwhelmed by the sheer number of immigration cases that are filed in their courts.

New caseload numbers have recently become available, and it is clear that this problem is not going away--Congress must act to fix it. Federal Court Management Statistics available at www.uscourts.gov reveal that for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2006, four District Courts each had more than one thousand criminal immigration filings. Not surprisingly, all of these Districts share a border with Mexico.

In fiscal year 2006, the Southern District of Texas had 3,679 immigration cases, the Western District of Texas had 2,324 immigration cases, the District of New Mexico had 1,940 immigration cases, and the District of Arizona had 1,924 immigration filings. In each of these Districts, immigration filings make up more than forty-nine percent of all of the District's criminal filings. No other District Court recommended for new judgeships had more than 314 immigration filings. In fact, the four Districts mentioned above account for more than 60 percent of all immigration filings in fiscal year 2006.

The legislation I am introducing today authorizes the ten new Federal judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference for these four U.S. Districts, where immigration filings total more than forty-nine percent of all Federal criminal filings.

Based on these caseloads, we should already have given these Districts new judgeships. But to increase border security and immigration enforcement efforts, as we have over the past few years, without equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they will face as a result of immigration enforcement efforts would amount to willful negligence on the part of Congress.

It is imperative to equip our Federal agencies with the assets they need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, including the Federal District courts that try repeat immigration law violators who are charged with Federal felonies.

The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a letter in May of 2006 about the situation her District faces. Judge Vazquez wrote:

As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this District

is considerable. This District ranks first among all

districts in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal

filings compared to the national average of 87. As in all

federal districts along the southwest border, the majority of

cases filed in this District relate to immigration offenses

under United States Code, Title 8 and drug offenses arising

under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for

eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New

Mexico. . . . In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration

felony filings in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year

2005, the number of immigration felony filings increased to

1,826, which is an increase of 661 percent.

The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden on our Southwest border District Courts. An April 17, 2006 article entitled ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated:

U.S. District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe

oversees a court that faces a rising caseload from illegal

border crossings and related crime. And help from Washington

is by no means certain. . . . From Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept.

30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the caseload in the

New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 percent,

from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126

felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the

entire 10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas,

Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go

before an immigration judge, and the subjects are deported.

But people deported once and caught crossing illegally again

can be charged with a felony. And that brings the

defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases

driving up New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many

as 90 defendants crowd the courtroom in Las Cruces . . .

The same problems are afflicting federal border courts in

Arizona, California, and Texas.

Similar problems were documented in the May 23, 2006 Reuters article ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said:

President George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of

National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border could spark a

surge in immigration cases and U.S. courts are ill prepared

to handle them . . . Even without the stepped-up security at

the border, federal courts in southern California, Arizona,

New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a

spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial

districts, out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of

all criminal cases moving through U.S. courts. . . Most

immigrants caught crossing illegally are ordered out of the

country without prosecution. But that still leaves a growing

pile of cases involving illegals who are being prosecuted

after being caught multiple times or those accused of other

crimes. . . Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of

87 cases a year. But along the southern border, even before

Bush's plan moves forward, the average is around 300 per

judge, Carelli said.

I have also heard first-hand about this problem from Federal judges in New Mexico, including one who travels almost 200 miles to hear cases in Southern New Mexico. Many of the situations he sees involve mass arraignments because there are so many defendants in the system. He is not alone in this arrangement; other Federal judges drive almost 300 miles to hear cases in the Southern part of my home State. This is a dire situation that must be addressed.

The United States Congress must address the overwhelming immigration caseload our southwestern border U.S. District Courts face. The bill I am introducing today does that by authorizing the eight permanent and two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference for the four U.S. Districts in which the immigration caseloads total more than forty-nine percent of those Districts' total criminal caseload. I am proud to have Congressman Cuellar join me in this effort by introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. President, I came to the Senate floor several times last year, and have already again this year in the 110th Congress, to talk about the need for Congress to pass legislation to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Legislation to amend and reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been considered by the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses, and today, my colleagues and I put forward a new version of the bill in the 110th Congress.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 builds on the work of prior Congresses, work done not only by the Indian Affairs Committee, but also by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Finance Committees. These committees gave us their recommendations on provisions in the legislation which are within their jurisdiction. I thank my colleagues for their collaboration on the Indian health reauthorization.

I have added new provisions to this year's Indian health bill that seek to address the lack of access to health care services that exists in so many tribal communities, which may be due to limited hours of operation at existing health care facilities or other factors. The bill would allow grants for demonstration projects which include a convenient care services program as an additional means of health care delivery.

This bill also addresses an issue that has been of particular concern to me: Indian youth suicide. The bill would authorize additional resources for Indian communities to confront this issue and seek to prevent, intervene in and treat Native American youth who have lost hope and are contemplating or have attempted suicide.

I thank my colleagues who have joined me in introducing this bill. It is my highest priority as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee.

I wish to note that title II of this bill sets forth amendments to the Social Security Act, addressing payments under Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP and other provisions which are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. The Indian Affairs and Finance Committees worked very closely together during last year's session on the provisions that are contained in this bill. I appreciate the efforts of both Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley in drafting these important provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007, and I look forward to their committee's approval of these provisions as the Indian Affairs Committee considers the provisions under our jurisdiction.

Eight years is too long to wait to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I intend to move aggressively to seek approval of this legislation by the Indian Affairs Committee, and to bring this bill to the Senate floor so that all my colleagues will have an opportunity to address the very fundamental need for--and right of--American Indians and Alaska Natives to adequate and innovative health care.

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