S.I. Hayakawa Official English Language Act of 2007

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, for a long time in Washington, if you talked about a deadline or a timetable, the response from the President, from the administration, even from the Republican side of the aisle, was the same. When you talked about a specific end to this war, they argued: It endangers our troops.

I did not agree with that premise. In fact, I believed this was the only way to convince the Iraqis we were not going to stay forever. If they think the very best military in the world, the American military forces, will stay there indefinitely, there is no incentive for them to make the right decisions, the hard decisions to govern their own country.

Well, time has passed at great cost to our Nation. As of this morning, we have lost 3,361 of our best and brightest soldiers--3,361. The month of April was the deadliest month this year in Iraq: 104 American soldiers lost their lives. I think we all understand now that as each day passes, more American soldiers are in danger and, sadly, more will give their lives. So to wait for a month, two or three or four, is, sadly, to extend that period of time of danger.

Now we find from Republican leaders a new approach. No longer are they rejecting the idea of deadlines or timetables. In fact, they are starting to speak in more specific terms.

This is a quote from the Republican leader of the House, John Boehner, who said:

By the time we get to September or October, members are

going to want to know how well this is working, and if it

isn't, what's Plan B?

That, to me, sounds like a deadline of September or October.

Then, of course, our colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, said:

I do think this fall we have to see some significant

changes on the ground, in Baghdad and other surrounding

areas.

I think it is an indication that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hearing the same thing we hear when we go home: First, an immense pride in our men and women in uniform, pride as well in their families who have stood by them through this long struggle; an understanding of the sacrifices that are being made by our soldiers as well as those who love them so very much but, secondly, an understanding that this is a failed policy that the President is pursuing in Iraq.

This is the fifth year of this war. This war has lasted longer than World War II. It is now only exceeded in cost by the cost of World War II in today's dollars. It is an extremely expensive undertaking, first, in human life, with over 3,000 Americans dying, and then with thousands coming home injured, some very seriously injured, with traumatic brain injury and amputations.

Senator Murray of Washington has been a leader when it comes to the care for our returning soldiers and veterans. We know our system is breaking down and falling behind, increasing the sense of urgency I feel and many feel in Illinois, as I see them on the streets of Chicago and Springfield and all around my State. They understand this is a heavy cost we are paying.

When our friends on the Republican side of the aisle say all we need is maybe 4 or 5 more months, I hope they understand that time they are asking

for is time that will have a heavy price. They want us to buy some time for political purposes but at a heavy price.

We think, and I hope they will come to understand, we need to tell the Iraqis now they have the responsibility to govern and lead. If they fail, then American troops are not going to stay there indefinitely. Some worry when American troops leave, there may be an unstable situation in Iraq. That is entirely possible. That can happen if we leave in 10 months, 10 years, or 15 years.

They have to understand the responsibility of the future of Iraq lies in the hands of the Iraqis. We cannot put that burden on American soldiers and their families any longer. I am heartened by these statements from the Republican side that finally they understand we cannot stay there forever, that the policy of this administration has not succeeded, that we owe it to soldiers and their families to treat them humanely, to let them know they will be coming home to a hero's welcome soon.

Our colleagues, Senator Jim Webb and Carl Levin, as well as Jack Reed, have spoken out about the readiness of our troops, too. I worry about that. As the President has extended this war, far beyond what anyone ever dreamed of, those who voted for that authorization of force, as he has extended this war, have put pressure on our soldiers beyond anything we could have imagined.

We have extended the tours of duty for National Guard members to the longest period of time since World War II. We now know many of our soldiers are asked to stay on an additional 3 months after they have served 12. We know when they come home, they do not receive the rest they were promised, the time with their family. They are quickly reactivated and sent into battle.

This has to have an impact on morale. It certainly has a negative impact on their families. So I believe as we talk about how this war is to be waged and what the next stage will be, regardless of what our plan may be, it has to include readiness and a commitment to these troops. I think it is important that we say to the President: Don't send a single soldier into harm's way or into combat unless they have had the time to rest, unless they have been retrained and equipped, unless they are prepared to go to battle with all of the forces they need to come home safely.

Shortchanging our soldiers is not a strategy that we should follow in Iraq. Let's come up with a plan to start bringing these troops home. We sent one to the President last week. He, in a press conference, told the American people he was going to reject it. We haven't heard anything back from him since then. But, in the meantime, many members of his own party have decided it is time for them to finally speak up. We welcome them. We need them. We need them particularly on this supplemental bill.

Mr. President, if a handful of Republican Senators will now cross the aisle and join us, we can have a positive impact on changing this failed policy in Iraq. We can finally stand as one in a bipartisan way and say there is a better way; that the Iraqis cannot take long vacations while the members of their parliament relax as our soldiers risk their lives. We have to tell the Iraqis we are not going to stay indefinitely.

When leaders such as Mr. Boehner of Ohio speak of plan B, just remember what the B stands for. The B stands for bring our soldiers home. That is what we need to start doing in an orderly, sensible way as soon as possible.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, in the coming weeks the Senate will again consider legislation to reform our broken immigration system. The Presiding Officer has been personally and deeply involved in this issue since coming to the Senate. I thank him for his leadership.

I think we all understand the challenge is substantial. If we want to solve the problem, we need a comprehensive approach that is tough but fair. We should improve border security by increasing manpower and deploying new technology. We should enforce the law against employers who are hiring millions of undocumented workers. And we need a realistic, honest approach to the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live and work in our country illegally.

Most importantly, we must ensure that immigration reform legislation protects the American economy and American workers as well.

I am concerned about the H-1B visa program as it is currently structured. I am afraid it is being abused by foreign companies to deprive qualified Americans of good jobs.

To address this problem, Senator Grassley and I have introduced S. 1035, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud Abuse Prevention Act of 2007. This is a bipartisan bill. It would overhaul the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to protect American workers and crack down on unscrupulous employers.

The H-1B visa program was designed to allow employers to attract and hire high-skilled foreign workers with specialized knowledge. H-1B visas are probably best known for their use in technology to import computer engineers and programmers.

I can't tell you how many leaders in industry, including one this afternoon, come into my office and say: We absolutely need H-1B visas. We can't find enough people with specialized education for our businesses. If you won't allow us to bring these workers in from overseas, we are going to be facing the possibility of taking our production facilities overseas where they live.

It is a compelling argument. I understand it on its face. But let me explain some of the problems with the current system and why Senator Grassley and I believe the system needs to be changed.

Supporters claim the goal of the H-1B program is to help the American economy by allowing U.S. companies to hire needed foreign workers. The reality is that H-1B visas are being used to facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries. It seems counterintuitive that a visa that allows people to come into the United States could lead to jobs being outsourced overseas, but when you hear my illustrations, you will understand the conclusion.

A recent expose in the International Herald Tribune disclosed that 8 of the top 10 H-1B visa applicants last year were outsourcing firms with major operations in one country--India. So in many cases it wasn't the American high tech company using the H-1B visa that was given this opportunity but, rather, a firm, more likely in India than any other country, that was given the authority to use H-1B visas to send workers into the United States. The Herald Tribune concluded:

As Indian outsourcing companies have become the leading

consumers of the [H-1B] visa, they have used to it further

their primary mission, which is to gain the expertise

necessary to take on critical tasks performed by companies in

the United States and perform them in India at a fraction of

the cost.

According to this report, the Indian Government has been lobbying hard for the United States Government to increase the number of H-1B visas. Kamal Nath, the Indian Commerce Minister, was very blunt when he said recently that the H-1B visa ``has become the outsourcing visa.'' He concluded:

If at one point you had X amount of outsourcing and now you

have a much higher quantum of outsourcing, you need that many

more visas.

That is a very candid statement by this commerce minister in India. It should give us pause as we think about this program, what it was designed to do and what it is actually doing.

In other words, the Indian Government wants more H-1B visas so Indian companies can outsource more American jobs to India.

Let me be clear. India is a valuable American partner in commerce, diplomacy, and many other endeavors. Indians who have come to the United States have made immeasurable contributions to the benefit of our country in so many ways. I trust them as great friends. But some in India today understand that we have a weakness in our visa system and are using it for their own economic advantage.

It is not surprising the Indian Government is advocating on behalf of Indian companies. The American Government should advocate on behalf of American companies. I don't criticize the Indian Government for doing that. But we should expect the same from our Government for our workers. We need to stand up to make sure American workers don't lose their jobs to outsourcing because of H-1B visas.

H-1B supporters claim we need more H-1B visas to stop American jobs from being outsourced. That was the logic behind H-1B visas. It appears the opposite is true. Under the current system, more H-1B visas will mean more outsourcing.

Let me give an example. Indian outsourcing company Wipro was No. 2 on the list of top applicants for H-1B visas in the year 2006. Wipro has more than 4,000 employees in the United States, and approximately 2,500 of them are here on H-1B visas. It is pretty clear that when it comes to Wipro's American operation, the majority of the workers are here on H-1B visas. Every year Wipro brings 1,000 new temporary workers here from India, while they send another 1,000 U.S. trained workers back to India. This is essentially an outsourcing factory.

Here is what the Herald Tribune concluded:

Rather than building a thriving community of experts and

innovators in the United States, the Indian firms seek to

funnel work--and expertise--away from the country.

It is hard to believe, but it is perfectly legal to use the H-1B visa program for outsourcing. A foreign outsourcing company with a U.S. office can use H-1B visas to import workers from their home country, train the workers in the United States, and then outsource them back to their home country to populate businesses competing with the United States. They are not required to make any efforts to recruit American workers for these jobs. In fact, they can explicitly discriminate against American workers who apply for the same jobs by recruiting and hiring only workers from their home country.

Here is what the Labor Department says about the current law:

H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker

wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the

job in favor of a foreign worker.

Is that what we had in mind with H-1B visas? That certainly wasn't the way it was explained to me. In fact, under current law, only employers who employ H-1B visa holders as a large percentage of their U.S. workforce are required to attempt to recruit American workers before bringing in foreign workers.

Senator Grassley and I have taken a look at this system. We both reject the notion that what is wrong with the H-1B program is that we need more visas. We have to look at the system that generates these visas and the way they are used. The legislation we have introduced would overhaul the H-1B program, protecting American workers first, and stopping H-1Bs from being exploited as outsourcing visas.

Here are the highlights. First and foremost, we would require all employers who want to hire an H-1B worker to attempt to hire an American worker first. Employers would also be prohibited from using H- 1B visas to displace American workers. You can't fire an American and turn around and appeal to our Government for an H-1B visa to bring someone in from overseas to replace that worker.

This is an important principle. We have to make it clear that companies doing business in the United States have to give first priority to American workers.

Our bill would require that before an employer may hire an H-1B worker, the employer must first advertise the job opening to American workers for 30 days on the Department of Labor Web site.

Some companies that abuse the H-1B visa program are so brazen, they say ``no Americans need apply'' in their job advertisements. Hundreds of such ads have been posted on line. They say things such as ``H-1B visa holders only'' or ``we require candidates for H-1B from India.''

Is that what we have in mind, to create this perverse discrimination against American workers? That isn't the way it was explained to me. Our H-1B reform bill would prohibit this blatant discriminatory practice.

There is another serious problem with the H-1B visa program. Federal oversight is virtually nonexistent. Under current law there are many roadblocks to effective Government enforcement. For example, the Department of Labor does not have the authority to open an investigation of an employer suspected of abusing the H-1B program unless the Department receives a formal complaint, even if the employer's application is clearly fraudulent. Even if there is a complaint, the Labor Secretary--and this is something that is almost unique in our law--must personally authorize the opening of an investigation.

These restrictions in the law are aggravated by lax Government enforcement. According to the Department of Homeland Security's own Inspector General, Homeland Security has violated the law by approving thousands of H-1B applications in excess of the annual cap of 65,000. The Government Accountability Office found that the Labor Department approves over 99.5 percent of H-1B petitions it receives, including those that on their face clearly violate the law.

There is virtually no Government oversight of potential abuse in this system. The Labor Department's inspector general has concluded that the H-1B program is ``highly susceptible to fraud.'' Remember, this program was designed to help the American economy, to help create jobs and prosperity in our country. Our Government is not even watching it closely to make sure that fraud isn't being perpetrated.

The bill Senator Grassley and I are proposing would give the Government more authority to conduct employer investigations and streamline the investigative process. Currently, the Labor Department is only authorized to review applications for ``completeness and obvious inaccuracies.'' Our bill would give the Labor Department more authority to review employers' H-1B applications for ``clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact.''

Our bill would authorize the Labor Department to conduct random audits of any company that uses the H-1B program and require the Department of Labor to conduct annual audits of companies that employ large numbers of H-1B workers. We would also increase the penalties for companies that violate H-1B visa rules and authorize the hiring of 200 additional Government investigators to oversee and enforce the H-1B program.

Last month, the government began accepting H-1B visa petitions for Fiscal Year 2008. In the first 24 hours, the government received 150,000 petitions for 65,000 slots, supposedly for the whole year. Based on last year's statistics, it is likely that the top petitioners for visas were companies from India. They understand the system. They understand how to make this profitable. But this is not the way it has been described to most Members of Congress. It certainly isn't consistent with our intent.

There is another program I wish to mention, the L-1 visa. The L-1 visa allows companies to transfer certain employees from foreign facilities to the United States for up to 7 years.

Experts have concluded that some employers use the L-1 program to evade restrictions on the H-1B program, because the L-1 program doesn't have an annual cap and doesn't include even minimal protections for American workers. As a result, efforts to reform the H-1B program are unlikely to succeed if the L-1 program is not overhauled at the same time.

The bill Senator Grassley and I have prepared would reform the L-1 program. We would establish for the first time whistleblower protections for those who call attention to employer abuses of L-1 programs, and for the first time we would authorize the Government to investigate and audit L-1 employers suspected of violating the law.

Before we are persuaded to increase the number of H-1B visas, we have to reform the program to protect American workers first and to stop H- 1Bs from being used as outsourcing visas that send jobs and business away from America. That is what our bill would do, and that is what Senator Grassley and I will be pushing for as the Senate considers comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

I know this immigration debate is contentious, controversial, and some think it is politically dangerous, but it is long overdue. The current immigration system in America has failed us.

We now have upwards of 800,000 undocumented immigrants who come across the borders each year. That has to change. We have to reach a point where we have control of our borders. Some of the measures that have been suggested during the course of the debate I think are extreme. We don't have to move in that direction.

I recently met with Senators from Mexico who were visiting the Capital last week and encouraged them to join with us in a joint effort between the United States and Mexico to police the border, to try to make sure there is less exploitation of people who are coming across for jobs or for moving drugs or contraband--whatever the reason may be. I think more cooperation would go a long way between our two countries.

We also need to be sensitive and cognizant of the burden facing many employers in this country. If someone presents themselves, in downstate Illinois in a meat-packing plant, with a name and a Social Security number and a local address, what is the responsibility of the employer today? It certainly isn't to launch a full-scale investigation. If the papers presented to that employer appear to be legal on their face, most employers will hire the person. They may learn later on that the documents were fraudulent.

How can we change that system? I think we need to move toward some form of identification that is reliable so the person carrying the card who is here in a legal and temporary employment status can prove their identity to the employer, so that the system is able to police itself more.

We also need to deal with the reality of 12 million undocumented people currently here. I know all about these folks because almost 90 percent of our casework in our Senate office deals with immigration. I have met many of them and their families. We need to find a fair way to hold them accountable, to make certain that over a period of time they can earn their way into legal status. They have to have a job and no criminal record; they have to pay a fine, pay their taxes, learn English, whatever it takes, to make sure that over a period of time, it is clear they have every intention to be a citizen of this country, and a good one. In that way, they can earn their way, over many years, into a position of citizenship or permanent legal status.

This country is great because of the immigrants who came here. My mother was one of them. I am very proud of that fact and happy to serve in a State

that would elect me and in a State that has so many immigrants who can tell the same story I have to tell.

I think the immigrant spirit is something that has made America a unique country. I think of people who, in their foreign lands, get up one day and say: We are not going to take it anymore. We are coming to America. We have a better chance. That is the kind of get-up-and-go we like to see that has made this a much better country.

I think we can capture that spirit in real, comprehensive immigration reform and avoid abuses such as those I have just described with the H- 1B program and at the end of the day have a program and a law supported by both political parties that will really move us forward as a Nation.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I want to take a few moments this afternoon to follow up on my remarks of last evening about concerns I have involving the immigration process that is ongoing in the Senate and what Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, has indicated he plans to do.

I absolutely believe a framework exists for us to develop comprehensive immigration reform that can be worthy of the American people, to create a lawful system of immigration that will work. It will be difficult in a number of areas, but we can do that. A framework is being discussed, I know, because I have seen the PowerPoint presentations and some of the other discussions about it. A framework exists that could lead to effective immigration reform. There is no doubt that this Nation needs comprehensive immigration reform. The whole system is broken. Nothing about it works. The legal system is an embarrassment to us as a nation and a source of frustration to the American people. They rightly are concerned about it, and politicians don't seem to be. That is why we have had a problem for so long, and frustration and anger gets built up. People sometimes call in to radio stations and say things they shouldn't say that are unkind. A lot of it is a direct response to a failure of the Congress and the executive branch to do what is required to create a lawful system of immigration. For Heaven's sake, don't we all agree with that concept, a lawful system of immigration?

What interests should it serve? It should serve the national interest, the American interest. I asked Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security and Secretary Gutierrez of Commerce at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee not long ago, what should a lawful system of immigration do? Should it not serve the national interest? They said: Yes, sir.

Professor Borjas, a Cuban refugee, at Harvard has written a book on immigration. He said: If you tell me what interest you wish to serve, I can help you draft an immigration policy that will work. For example, if you say it should be the national interest, I can help you achieve that. If you want to serve the interest of poor people around the world, I can help achieve that. He basically said in his book ``Heaven's Door,'' we could serve poor people around the world by just letting them all in. That would be in their interest. We know that. In 2000, we had 11 million people apply for 50,000 lottery slots. The names are drawn out of a hat randomly. Only 50,000 are drawn out a year. We had 11 million apply for those slots.

We have to look at the basics. More people want to come to this country than we can accept, and those whom we accept should be based on what is in our interest. How much more simple can it be than that? I submit that is a moral and legitimate basis.

We always have a humanitarian component to immigration. I would not reduce that. About 16 percent of those who come, thereabouts, are for humanitarian reasons. I think we will always want to have that available for people who are persecuted or otherwise need humanitarian relief. Fundamentally, the rest of our program ought to serve the national interest.

This is what has happened. There are supposedly bipartisan discussions going on--and I know they are going on--to try to take the framework that has been agreed on by the President, Cabinet members, and some Members and to flesh that out and develop an immigration policy. That hasn't reached fruition. I understand some of the leaders on the Democratic side have walked away. They are not prepared to follow through on the overall agenda item for a given area, this framework. When you start writing down the words that will actually effectuate what you promise to do, then people start backing off.

I have said a number of times on the floor that we have a great deal of interest in immigration reform, except that we need a lawful system which will work. If it is a system that will actually work, we find immediately people start objecting.

Senator Reid has said these negotiators--I sometimes want to call them masters of the universe; I don't know who selected them--are meeting here and they are deciding the fate of American immigration. I want to say, well, let's see what they produce. I have told my constituents I hope they will discuss it, and maybe some agreement can be reached, one I could support. But I

promised my constituents--and every Senator ought to make this commitment--that I am going to read that bill. Just because people have great sounding words, if you don't read the words carefully and what they will actually mean in the effort to enforce immigration law, then you don't know what you are going to get. You are going to end up as we did in 1986, with a program that was an utter failure. The one we had last year would never have worked. It would have been a disastrous failure. It had no chance of being successful or ever achieving the ideas it purported.

Senator Reid apparently is unhappy. He has the power, as the Democratic leader, to call up any piece of legislation he wants to call up. He has said: I am not happy with the speed of this. He has said he is going to call up, under the power of the majority leader under rule XIV, last year's bill, and that this will be on the floor. Then he will want the negotiators to continue to negotiate, and maybe they will figure out what would be better. Then he might substitute this newly negotiated bill that hasn't been written yet--nobody has seen a word of it--and then we will vote. That will make everybody happy.

Let me say this, with all sincerity: The American people know immigration is a big issue. It is an important issue; it really is. It says a lot about the nature of this country. Are we going to be a country that the world knows has laws that are never enforced, that our immigration policies make a mockery of the law, as they do today? Will we continue to see people all over the world get the idea in their heads--correct today, basically--that if they can just get into America, sooner or later we will make them citizens and give them everything, even if they came illegally? Is that the kind of message we want to send?

Senator Reid has said he is going to bring up last year's bill. He also indicated that after last year's bill is introduced and maybe a compromise would be reached. Maybe they would substitute this compromise as a new bill which we have never seen before, nor the words in it.

Let me tell my colleagues, an immigration bill is not an itty-bitty thing. An immigration bill consists of a lot of pages. A group of us, about 15 of us, wrote to the majority leader and asked that we have 7 days--I thought that was way too short--to read the bill. Isn't that pathetic? The immigration bill last year was 700-plus pages. Seven hundred pages. This never before seen compromise version may be longer. At least last year's bill came out of the Judiciary Committee, and we had a chance to argue over it in there, although the train ran right through the Judiciary Committee and it ran through--basically through the floor of the Senate. But we began to read it before it was over, and I remember making a speech down here, several speeches, pointing out 17 loopholes in that bill, fatal flaws in the legislation. But anyway, it passed, but the House refused to even consider it.

Based on what was in the New York Times and Rollcall or The Hill or one of the publications, the plan would then presumably be for Senator Reid to bring up last year's bill, which is unthinkable, in my view. It was fatally flawed. We will stay on that bill for some time, and then perhaps they will plop on it a substitute and take out all or parts of last year's bill and substitute an entirely new bill, 600, 700 or 800 pages, and then we will vote on it. That will be good for the masters of the universe, you see, because when you do that, there would not be time for the American people or for Lou Dobbs or Rush Limbaugh to find out what is in it and to tell the American people what is in it so they can get mad about it. That is basically what it is about. They want to slide it through with the least possible time to discuss it. I think that is irresponsible. It is wrong.

We should spend plenty of time on this legislation. We should go to the American people with honesty and integrity and tell them: Some of the things you want to do, Mr. and Mrs. America, we can't do. We are not going to be able to make immigration come out exactly like you would want it or exactly like I would want it. We are going to have to reach a compromise, but we understand we have a commitment to you, and that commitment is to create a system that will work in the future.

But I am worried about it because from what I am hearing, the system seems to be moving in a way that is going to create an opportunity to vote on a completely unseen immigration bill--nobody has read it except a little group--and move it through this Senate. Now, remember, the bill that passed last year was a bad piece of legislation, but it did pass this Senate. People thought it would die in the House, and sure enough, it did die in the House and it was never considered. They wouldn't even look at it. But I am not sure that is going to happen this time.

So we may have this plan in the works, and it will work something akin to this: Well, we spend 2 or 3 days talking about immigration, burning time and filibustering, filing cloture on a motion to proceed, and we get on the bill for a day or two and then all of a sudden a new bill comes on and in a day or two, it is passed. Hardly anybody knows what is in it or has had a chance to read it. Then it goes to the House of Representatives, where the Democratic majority now has a 15 seat, 16 seat or so majority over there; some of the Republicans would clearly be in favor of whatever passed out of the Senate. They don't have any way to delay votes over there, so the bill could be brought up and passed, the same bill, without any amendment. That could happen. Then it goes to the President and he signs it and then we will find out 2, 3 or 4 years from now whether it works.

I don't think it is going to work. I am worried about it. I am worried about it. I am worried there is not a commitment among the executive branch to enforce the immigration laws.

Anybody who would like to be elected President--the new executive branch leader has a commitment to ensuring a lawful system of immigration. That is all the American people want. They are not saying they don't want any immigrants in America.

So I am saying this because I am concerned this is where we are headed. I think it is unhealthy for the Senate. If we do that, we would have failed in an august responsibility. This is the body that is supposed to let the passions cool, where Senators look over important issues, think them through, and then make a decision on them. Also, the delay and the slowdown that goes on in the Senate is helpful so the American people can be advised on what their representatives are actually doing. So I am worried about it, and Senator Reid's strategy is frightening to me.

So let me repeat: I believe the framework that has been mentioned for the drafting of a comprehensive immigration reform bill actually has the potential to be successful. But based on my experience in the 10 years I have been in the Senate and the debate we have seen on immigration, I am inclined to believe they will have positive-sounding words on the headlines in big print, but the real language will not effectuate the promises they make or the goals they set. We could end up with no progress whatsoever. We could end up with amnesty and no enforcement in the future.

That is what happened in 1986. If you remember, in 1986, they said there are probably a million people in the country illegally. The system was not working. We had to do something, so we should grant amnesty to the people who came illegally, contrary to law, and then we would develop a new system in the future so that this would be the amnesty to end all amnesties. There would be no more amnesties. Well, 3 million people showed up to take advantage of it rather than 1 million people, and in the 20-plus years--21 years--since, we now have found in our country an estimated 12 million to 20 million people here illegally. So now we want to, I guess, give amnesty again on a promise that we will have a system that will work in the future. But the American people, you see, are cynical about it. They are not comfortable with us anymore on this subject, and frankly they are right to be cynical. Because there are a lot of special interests out there who are asking for what is in their interests but not what is in the national interests. It is time for us to consider what is in the national interests and do the right

thing on immigration. I firmly believe we will do a better job of writing a bill that will work, a bill that will serve our national interests, that will create a lawful immigration system, if the American people know what is going on, because that is what they want.

The American people have been consistently right on this issue. Their instincts have been right consistently. Oh, there are some nutty folks out here who are mean spirited, there is no doubt about that, but they represent a very small number. The basic feeling of the American people is sound on immigration and has been. It is the Congress and the executive branches that have failed them for 50 years. We don't have to continue to fail the American people. We have a responsibility to make it work, and I am hopeful that in the discussions for the first time with Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez helping behind the scenes to develop some plans that would actually work, we might even get this thing done. There is some possibility. I wouldn't have believed it, but now I am beginning to think it is possible.

But if at the last minute the special interest groups who seem to have dominated last year get their way, we would not be able to pass the bill we can be proud of. We would not pass a bill that will work, and we will be back in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now, dealing with another crisis.

So I will not go on anymore about it. I will mention what the framework, as I understood it, contained, that these PowerPoint presentations that were shown around and got leaked to the press, it has real improvement in border enforcement. We need that. That is essential. If you are serious about immigration, you want border enforcement. It set up as a goal a very effective job workplace enforcement, something that could actually work, using biometric identifying cards, helping the businesses and telling them exactly what they need to do so they can't be prosecuted or sued for doing something wrong. They are told exactly what to do and what will work. We can make the workplace cease to be the magnet for illegal jobs. That is very important, and it can be done. We need to deal compassionately and realistically with the people who are here illegally, but I don't believe that someone who broke the law in our country should be given every single benefit that we give to those who come lawfully. We will have to wrestle with that, and nobody is going to be happy, I am sure, with the way that comes out. That is the way it is with any big piece of legislation.

We need a genuine temporary seasonal worker program that is separate and apart from the program that would allow people to come into the country on a citizenship track. On the basic entry, citizenship entry into the United States, we need to be far more similar to Canada, which has a merit-based, skill-based system that evaluates applicants on what they bring to Canada: Do you speak English? Do you have an education? Do you have skills that Canada needs? It is a skill-based point system. It is objective and fair, and it serves the Canadian interests, and they are very happy with it. So is Australia, so is New Zealand, and I think the United Kingdom is also moving forward in this direction. A merit-based point system can actually be a framework for success. I understand that is being discussed. We do not need to promote such a framework, and then vote on a bill that doesn't create the merit-based point system when you read the fine print. That would be a failure.

So those are my concerns, and I will object with every ability I have, I will utilize every tool I have to ensure that whatever bill hits this floor, that Senators and the American people have time to evaluate it and an opportunity to know what is in it. But there are ways that this time and opportunity can be denied if the leadership is determined and can get the support. We could deny the American people that right, and it would be wrong to do so.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici and Senator Ensign in introducing the Mental Health in Schools Act of 2007 to assist the Nation's public schools in providing better access to mental health services for their students.

The need for these services has never been greater. The tragic events at Columbine, Nickel Mines, and Virginia Tech underscore the fact that when left untreated, childhood mental disorders can lead to academic failure, family conflicts, substance abuse, violence, and suicide.

Comprehensive school mental health program should be designed for all students. They should obviously include both identification and referral of specific individuals for treatment, but they should also include programs and services that promote positive mental health and prevent mental health problems for a broader population of students.

Strong mental health, similar to strong physical health, makes it possible for children to develop socially, emotionally, and intellectually. We know that mental illnesses often appear for the first time during childhood and adolescence. One in five children has a diagnosable mental disorder, yet three-quarters of children and youth who need mental health services do not receive them. With proper care and treatment, approximately 80 percent of people with mental illness experience a significant reduction of symptoms and a better quality of life.

Our schools are important settings for recognizing and addressing children's mental disorders. In fact schools often function as the de facto mental health system for children and adolescents. Especially in rural areas, schools are likely to provide the only mental health services available, for children.

Effective school mental health programs reflect the cooperation and commitment of families, students, educators, and other community partners.

However, of the 95,000 public schools in the United States, only half report having formal partnerships with community mental health providers to deliver mental health services.

The services and support provided through these partnerships should be family-centered and community-centered, and should also be culturally and linguistically appropriate.

The goal of the Mental Health in Schools Act is to assist local communities in developing comprehensive school mental health programs that provide a continuum of services for students.

I urge the Senate to join us in supporting schools and communities in expanding their mental health programs to make them more comprehensive, so that our school children across the nation can receive the proper support and services they need in order to thrive in our society and become productive citizens.

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

Mr. President, of all the challenges we face today, one of the most important is creating greater opportunities for the Nation's children to learn and succeed in life. If America is to remain competitive in the global economy, if all Americans are to have access to the American dream, we must ensure that all our children receive a good education.

A good education begins with a good teacher. One of the most significant steps we can take to improve the Nation's schools is to do more to support the recruitment, training, and retention of high quality teachers.

We owe a great debt to America's teachers. Day in and day out, in thousands of schools across the country, they struggle to give our children the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. Our teachers are at the forefront of the constant effort to improve public education. It is their vision, energy, hard work, and dedication that will make all the difference in successfully meeting this challenge.

As Shirley Hufstedler, the Nation's first Secretary of Education, said:

``The role of the teacher remains the highest calling of a

free people. To the teacher, America entrusts her most

precious resource, her children; and asks that they be

prepared, in all their glorious diversity, to face the rigors

of individual participation in a democratic society.''

All children need and deserve teachers who can help them succeed. We in Congress must do all in our power to help them do so.

We took a major step toward this goal when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which recognized that all students deserve first-rate teachers to help them reach their potential in school. The law established a goal to guarantee a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the end of 2006. Few states have reached that ambitious target, and much more remains to be done to achieve success.

Extensive research shows that teacher quality is the most important educational factor affecting student achievement. One recent study showed that having a highly qualified teacher can improve student academic growth by as much as one full year. Another showed that students taught by highly qualified teachers for 3 consecutive years significantly outperformed their peers on academic assessments. A comparison of low-performing and high-performing elementary schools with similar student populations found that differences in teacher qualifications accounted for 90 percent of the difference in performance in reading and math. There's strong evidence that a good teacher can make all the difference in closing achievement gaps for the neediest students in our public schools.

Investing in teacher quality is cost effective and fiscally responsible. A recent study involving 1,000 school districts found that additional dollars invested in more highly qualified teachers resulted in greater improvements in student achievement than any other use of school resources.

Unfortunately, research also shows that high quality teachers are the most inequitably distributed educational resource in the Nation. The most at-risk students are too often taught by the least prepared, least experienced, and least qualified teachers. Students in high poverty schools are twice as likely to be taught by teachers with less than 3 years of experience. Such teachers are less likely to receive the resources and support they need to succeed. Often they leave the profession and further destabilize already struggling schools. By contrast, children of the affluent and the privileged are much more likely to be taught by highly prepared and qualified, expert teachers with broad knowledge and experience in the subjects they teach.

To enable more teachers to receive the assistance they need to improve their instruction, ensure that every child receives a high quality education, and level the playing field for America's students, Congress must act on a comprehensive plan to build and sustain a strong teacher workforce.

That is why today I am introducing the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act of 2007, the TEACH Act. Its purpose is to assist the States and districts in better recruiting, training, retaining and supporting our teachers. Our distinguished colleague in the House, Congressman George Miller, is introducing companion legislation, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue.

The TEACH Act addresses four specific challenges head on:

It increases the supply of outstanding teachers and provides incentives to attract them to high-need schools;

It ensures all children have teachers with expertise in the subjects they teach;

It improves teaching by identifying and rewarding the best teaching practices and by expanding professional development opportunities; and

It helps schools retain teachers and principals by providing the support they need to succeed.

Enrollment in public schools has reached an all-time high of 53 million students, and is expected to keep increasing over the next decade. To educate this expanding population, additional high quality teachers are urgently needed.

Many schools today face a crisis in recruiting and retaining highly- skilled teachers, particularly in the Nation's poorest communities. We now have approximately 3 million public school teachers across the country. Mr. President, 2 million new teachers will be needed in the next 10 years to serve the growing student population. Yet we are not even retaining the teachers we have today. A third of all teachers leave during their first 3 years. Almost half leave during the first 5 years. Over 200,000 teachers leave the profession each year--6 percent of the teaching workforce.

The shortage of highly qualified teachers is especially acute in the fields most essential to America's future competitiveness, and particularly affects low-income students. A third of all math classes in high-poverty high schools are taught by teachers who don't have a degree in math, compared to just 18 percent of such classes in low- poverty schools. Over half of all science classes in such schools are taught by teachers without a degree in their field, compared to just 22 percent of such classes in low-poverty schools. Meanwhile, students in other nations are surpassing American students in math and science achievement.

Too often, teachers also lack the training and support needed to do well in the classroom. They are paid on average almost $8,000 a year less than graduates in other fields, and the gap widens to more than $23,000 after 15 years of teaching. Mr. President, 37 percent of teachers cite low salaries as a main factor for leaving the classroom before retirement.

The TEACH Act will do more to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, particularly in schools and subjects where they are needed most. The bill provides financial incentives to encourage talented individuals to pursue and remain in this essential profession, and it offers higher salaries, tax breaks, and greater loan forgiveness.

To attract motivated and talented individuals to teaching, the bill provides up-front tuition assistance, $4,000 a year, to high-performing undergraduate students who agree to commit to teach for 4 years in high-need areas and in subjects such as math, science, and special education. It also creates a competitive grant program for colleges and universities to recruit teachers among students majoring in math, science, or foreign language.

The TEACH Act will also help deliver access to the best teachers for the neediest students to help them succeed, and will help keep these teachers where they are most needed. In high-poverty schools, teacher turnover is 33 percent higher than in other schools. Clearly, we must do a better job of attracting better teachers to the neediest classrooms and do more to reward their efforts, so that they stay in the classroom. To encourage expert teachers to teach where they are needed, the bill provides funding to school districts to reward teachers who transfer to schools with the greatest challenges, and provides incentives for teachers working in math, science, and special education.

The bill establishes a framework to develop and use the systems needed at the State and local levels to improve teaching and to recognize exceptional teaching in the classroom. It encourages the development of data systems to provide teachers with additional data to inform and improve classroom instruction. It also encourages the development of model teacher advancement programs that recognize and reward different roles, responsibilities, knowledge, and positive results with competitive compensation initiatives.

Too often, teachers lack the training they need before reaching the classroom. On the job, they have few sources of support to meet the challenges they face in the classroom, and few opportunities for ongoing professional development to expand their skills. The bill responds to the needs of teachers in their early years in the classroom by creating new and innovative models that use proven strategies to support beginning teachers. New teachers will have access to mentoring, opportunities for cooperative planning with their peers, and a special transition year to ease into the pressures of entering the classroom. Veteran teachers will have an opportunity to improve their skills through peer mentoring and review. Other support includes professional development delivered through teaching centers to improve training and working conditions for teachers.

Since good leadership is also essential for schools, the bill provides important incentives and support for principals by improving recruitment and training for them as well.

This legislation was developed with input from a broad and diverse group of educational professionals and experts, including the Alliance for Excellent Education, the American Federation of Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Children's Defense Fund, the Education Trust, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, the National Council on Teacher Quality, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, New Leaders for New Schools, the New Teacher Center, Operation Public Education, the Teacher Advancement Program Foundation, Teach for America and the Teaching Commission. I thank them all for their help and their work on behalf of our nation's children.

The TEACH Act is good for America's children; it's good for America's economy; and it's good for America's future. It is an essential part of our ongoing effort to ensure that ``No Child Left Behind'' becomes a reality and not just a slogan.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Chairman Leahy's bill, S. 1327, which will reestablish temporary judgeships where needed in the district courts and extend other temporary judgeships that are about to expire. The bill will reestablish a 10-year temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of California, where it is sorely needed.

The Eastern District has had a temporary judgeship before, but it expired in the fall of 2004. Even before the temporary judgeship expired, the caseload in the district was already the second highest in the Nation: 787 filings per judge, which was almost 50 percent more than the national average.

Since that time, the situation in the Eastern District has grown even more dire. Average caseloads across the Nation have declined, but in the Eastern District they have increased by 18 percent.

The Eastern District of California now has the highest caseload in the country: 927 filings per judge. That is twice as many cases as the national average.

It is no exaggeration to say that the judges of the Eastern District are in desperate need of relief. They have continued to serve with distinction in the face of the crushing caseloads. Mr. President, two of the court's senior judges still carry full caseloads after taking senior status. Two other senior judges are also continuing to hear cases in the district. There is another reason why it is imperative for the Senate to act now and adopt this bill. In just a few months, there will be a vacancy in the Eastern District when Chief Judge David Levi leaves the bench after 17 years of distinguished service.

It is my hope that Chief Judge Levi's seat can be filled as quickly as possible with a well qualified nominee. But, as a practical matter, it is unlikely that the confirmation process for a new judge will be complete when Chief Judge Levi leaves office.

This will leave the Eastern District with still fewer judges to handle its highest-in-the-Nation caseload. The district will need even more help to ensure that cases continue to be handled with the care, attention, and promptness that are essential to the fair administration of justice.

I view this bill as an important first step toward getting California all of the judges it needs. According to the 2007 recommendations of the Judicial Conference, California needs a total of 12 new judges, more judges than are needed in any other State in the Nation. Four of those judges are needed in the Eastern District alone. By adding a temporary judgeship in the district, this bill will help fill the gap until the Senate acts to carry out the Judicial Conference's recommendations.

I thank Chairman Leahy for taking this important first step toward ensuring that the Federal courts in California have all the judges they need.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Kennedy, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Clinton, Durbin, Boxer and Lautenberg in introducing the Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007, which would regulate a single type of firearm, 50 BMG caliber sniper rifles.

Mr. President, 50 BMG caliber sniper rifles are among the most dangerous firearms in the world. These sniper rifles are capable of bringing down airplanes and helicopters that are taking off or landing, and they can pierce light armored personnel vehicles. They have extraordinary range, up to a mile with accuracy, with a maximum distance of up to 4 miles. Under President Clinton, the State Department suspended all export of these weapons for civilian use in foreign countries. The Bush administration initially changed this rule to allow such sales, but after 9/11 it decided to reinstate this ban.

Yet here in the United States, our laws continue to classify these weapons as ``long guns'', subject to the least government regulation of any firearms. Current Federal law makes no distinction between a .22 caliber target rifle, a .30-06 caliber hunting weapon, and this large- caliber .50 BMG combat weapon. In some States, youngsters who are 14 years old can get .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles, with no limitation on second-

hand sales. In fact, anyone who can own a rifle can buy a .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle. No permits. No licenses. No wait.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today, just as I have introduced similar legislation in the last 3 sessions of Congress. The bill would:

Add these uniquely powerful sniper rifles to the list of firearms classified as ``destructive devices'', which would mean they must be registered when purchased or sold;

require the same registration for any ``copycat'' sniper rifles that might be developed in the future with destructive power that is equivalent to the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle; and

allow people who already possess .50 BMG caliber sniper weapons up to 7 years to register their existing firearms, by implementing a registration process similar to what was used when ``street sweeper'' and other firearms were reclassified as ``destructive devices'' in 1994.

This bill would not ban any firearms, including .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles. Instead, it would change the law by treating .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles in the same way we now treat ``street sweeper'' shotguns, silencers, and any rifle with a dimension larger than .50 caliber. It would regulate these weapons, making it harder for terrorists and others to buy these combat weapons for illegitimate use.

This is not your classic hunting rifle. These weapons weigh up to 28 pounds, and have a price tag of between $2,200 and $6,750. And they fire the most powerful commonly available cartridges, the massive BMG, Browning Machine Gun, bullet, which has a diameter of \1/2\ inch and a length of 3-6 inches.

These rounds are almost as big as my hand. The Congressional Research Service says that a .50 BMG caliber cartridge weighs four and a half times more, and has five times more propellant, than the cartridges used in similar midsize rifles, like the .308 Winchester.

This is a weapon designed to kill people efficiently, and destroy machinery, at a great distance. And the distances are frankly astonishing. In fact, this weapon was able to kill a person from a greater distance than any other sniper rifle with a world-record confirmed distance of 2,430 meters, a mile and a half away.

These weapons are ``accurate'' up to 2,000 yards, a distance that means it will strike a standard target within this range more than a mile away. To illustrate what this means, a shooter standing on Alcatraz Island off of San Francisco could sight and kill a person at Pier 39.

And the gun has a maximum range of up to 7,500 yards, meaning that while accuracy cannot be guaranteed, the round can strike a target at this distance. Imagine 75 football fields lined up end to end, a distance of over 4 miles. This means a shooter at the Sausalito marina could send bullets crashing into the San Francisco marina.

In short, these are military combat-style weapons. The .50 BMG cartridge has been used by our forces in machine guns since World War I, and our military has utilized .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles in the gulf war, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq. They can shoot through almost anything, a bunker, bulletproof glass, a 3\1/2\ inch thick manhole cover, a 600-pound safe.

But as the GAO noted in 1999, many of these guns also wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, international and domestic drug traffickers, and violent criminals.

In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They were also charged with plotting to assassinate a Governor, and other high-ranking political and judicial officers. A .50-caliber sniper rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that included three illegal machine guns.

One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns.

At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming.

Since the GAO report, it was also revealed in a federal trial in Manhattan that al-Qaida received .50-caliber sniper rifles, rifles manufactured right here in the United States. Essam al Ridi, an al- Qaida associate, testified that he acquired 25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to al-Qaida members in Afghanistan.

What sort of damage could these weapons do in the wrong hands? The U.S. Air Force conducted a study, and determined that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase would be as vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' against a sniper with a .50-caliber weapon, because the weapons can shoot from beyond most airbase perimeters.

The RAND Corporation confirmed this, releasing a report which identified 11 potential terrorist scenarios at Los Angeles International Airport. In one scenario, ``a sniper, using a .50 caliber rifle, fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.'' The report concludes: ``we were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions'' for such an attack.

One need not even search for reports, the weapon's manufacturers admit it. One Barrett .50 caliber brochure says:

[A] round of ammunition purchased for less than ten U.S.

dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet

aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the

transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the

weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar

aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.

And it is not just aircraft. A terrorist using this rifle could punch holes in pressurized chemical tanks, igniting combustible materials or leaking hazardous gases. Or penetrate armored vehicles used by law enforcement, or protective limousines, like those used here in Washington.

No wonder a broad coalition of law enforcement officers and groups, detailing the threat that these weapons pose to our first responders, said:

The fact that these weapons have a range of more than four

miles and can take down commercial airliners is reason enough

to keep these weapons off our streets. It is of special

concern to the law enforcement community that these weapons

of war are capable of penetrating our special operations

vehicles, tactical equipment and helicopters.

This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover Government Accountability Office investigators:

You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time

before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so

far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will

definitely ban .50-calibers. This gun is just too powerful.

In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns.

Special ammunition for these guns is also readily available in stores and on the Internet. This is perfectly legal. Moreover, ``armor- piercing incendiary'' ammunition, which explodes on impact, can be purchased online, as demonstrated in a ``60 Minutes'' news report. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor-piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator, even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to shoot down a helicopter.

The bottom line is that the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle is a national security threat requiring action by Congress. It makes no sense for us to spend billions of dollars on homeland security while we allow terrorists and criminals to get weapons that can serve as tools for terrorism.

The legislation that I am introducing has been carefully tailored, and refines my earlier bills. In fact, it is narrower than my earlier bills, in that it regulates only .50 ``BMG'' caliber sniper rifles, not all .50 caliber rifles.

There is no doubt that the .50 BMG caliber is the most powerful commonly available cartridge not considered a destructive device under the National Firearms Act. It is in a class by itself. And that's why this bill puts .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles into the class of firearms called destructive devices. Because that is where they belong.

Congress would not be alone in treating the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle as the unique weapon of destruction that it is. My home State of California has regulated .50 BMG caliber sniper rifles since 2004, in a law signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill I introduce would adopt a similar registration system nationwide.

In fact, Congress itself has previously recognized the unique destructive properties of this weapon. Ever since 2000, our DOD Appropriations bills have contained a special restriction on the Department of Defense's ability to sell surplus armor-piercing ammunition for .50 caliber weapons to civilians through its demilitarization program.

This is a weapon that should not be openly available to terrorists and criminals, but should be responsibly controlled through carefully crafted regulation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Madam President, I just returned from Greensburg, KS, yesterday, where we had a horrific tornado hit late Friday evening. I want to share with my colleagues some of the damage assessments, some of the pictures of what has taken place, and some of the needs we have for this community. It is a community I have been to a number of times while serving in different positions in Kansas. It is a wonderful community, full of community spirit, with people who have been there for a number of years. They have a celebration around a hand-dug well that is kind of an unusual event. It is the world's largest hand-dug well. You can go to the bottom of it, and I have done that.

Greensburg is a community with a lot of spirit in the middle of the State and in the middle of our country. Now it is experiencing this tremendous devastation. The tornado covered 40 miles in 90 minutes. It was first spotted at 8:24 p.m. last Friday 3 miles south of Sitka, KS, in Clark County.

The tornado tracked through six counties: Comanche, Kiowa, Edwards, Stafford, Pratt, and Barton. At 9:45 p.m., the tornado demolished Greensburg before wrapping north and dissipating before 10 p.m. Fortunately, the National Weather Service and a weather man out of Dodge City spotted it and warned the community, and the community had about a 20-minute warning that a tornado was coming and that it was a big one.

When Greensburg was struck, the tornado's wind forces exceeded 205 miles per hour, falling into the highest category on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, EF-5. The size of the tornado was 1.7 miles in diameter, which, if you know anything about tornadoes, is enormous. Twelve people have died as a result of this storm cell. They found another two individuals yesterday.

When a tornado hits--and you will see pictures here--often the houses will blow up in the process because of the air pressure outside of the house that is much reduced from the air pressure in the house, and there will be a blowing up of the house, or the wind comes in and hits it. It can be destroyed by the wind.

Thirteen people are still in the hospital, with four of them in critical condition today. There was some good news on Sunday. We found a person still alive underneath the rubble.

Ninety percent of the town has been destroyed, from Greensburg to the Northeast, which was hit by multiple tornadoes that were spawned by the same supercell thunderstorm. It is an older community. More than 50 percent of the population is 45 years of age or older, and 25 percent of the population is 65 years of age or older. Primarily, the economic drivers of the community are farming and oil and gas production.

We will need substantial assistance. I want to show pictures from the wreckage I toured yesterday. I am pleased to note that the President is coming tomorrow. I was there yesterday with the Governor and several members of the congressional delegation. Senator Roberts was there on Saturday. It is devastating to see.

Here you see a structure left standing there, which is a grain elevator. That is really the only structure left standing in the town. The courthouse is standing, but its roof has been ripped off. It is amazing people can actually survive something like this. Most people have storm shelters or basements they can go into, and they did with the warning, and some called other people in the community. All of these trees were denuded in the area, and the whole place was ripped and torn into shreds in the county and in this particular community.

This is one of the main structures in the downtown area of Greensburg. All of the brick around it is damaged.

They were able to keep the Greensburg sign still posted in this picture. These were taken when the storm system was still in the area. There was a tornado the next day within a mile of Greensburg, from the same supercell system. It dumped 10, 12 inches of rain in northeast Kansas.

You can still see ominous-looking clouds in this photo. It was very dicey over the entire weekend.

This was one of the more stable houses that remains standing in the area. I went into a house that was somewhat like this, which was built almost 100 years ago. I talked with the

owner. They were going to celebrate the 100-year anniversary for the house, which was built in 1908. He said, ``We didn't quite make it.'' The house is going to be demolished now. It will not survive.

This is a view of some of the damage to vehicles. This is a blank landscape in the backdrop. I wanted to give some views of what has taken place in the community. It has been completely and utterly destroyed.

I would like to note that FEMA has been questioned by me and by a number of my colleagues. Prior to Katrina, it had done a lot of good work that people had respected and appreciated. They felt there was a good group on the job. But then Katrina happened and you looked and said: Where is the FEMA that I knew that would go in and respond in these situations? We are watching carefully to see how FEMA responds to our situation, to our devastation.

I am pleased to state--and I talked with a number of individuals in the community--they are meeting the needs. The needs of the community are being met. They are there on the grounds, being aggressive in dealing with it. The people appreciate they are there. We are going to watch and make sure all of their needs are met.

I will ask my colleagues for assistance as well. This is a small, older community. It lacks much in the way of resources. We need help in this particular situation. We are going to be pushing--Senator Roberts and I--for 100-percent coverage on public assistance and on matters such as debris removal and repair and rebuilding public facilities: city hall, fire stations, hospitals, water/wastewater, city powerplant, and gas and diesel generators. The community lacks the resources to meet these needs. We will look to remove the 25-percent local match for FEMA funds. The entire town and their economy was destroyed. There is no way Greensburg can come up with the match of funds that is necessary in this community.

I also want to try something innovative. This is a community in the High Plains. The New Homestead Act is a bill that Senator Dorgan from North Dakota and I have been pushing for some time. I have been a lead cosponsor. As I said, it is a bill called the New Homestead Act. We have had many communities drained in the High Plains, particularly in the Midwest, because of a consolidation in agriculture primarily, but also other features, to where we have had out-migration in huge areas. This is a county that has experienced a lot of out-migration. I would like to see us use Kiowa County--Greensburg is the county seat--as a pilot project for the New Homestead Act.

The biggest concern, once we complete cleanup, is getting the people and their businesses back up and going. Here is a chance for us, given the level of public commitment in place and the desire to rebuild this community, to try this New Homestead Act that can work as a magnet to attract people back into these communities that have had difficulty transitioning from an agricultural economy to something else. This bill is to encourage people to move to rural areas that have depopulated. This bill will help repay college tuition loans for people who move back into the community, help folks buy their first home and set up individual homestead accounts to help people save for the future. Also, this bill will help pump capital to Main Street America through a rural venture capital fund.

I think these are things we can look at and say let's try this here and let's see it work. Let's see what we can model off of to help many places in the High Plains that have experienced this depopulation. We will be pushing also for an enhanced USDA rural development package.

There has been a controversy coming up that I think is unfortunate. That has been the question about whether there has been enough equipment from the National Guard--the Kansas National Guard, on the ground in Greensburg to take care of this atrocity, this disaster, or has too much been diverted to the war on terrorism and in Iraq. Yesterday, I asked specifically the Kansas adjutant general--the head of the Kansas National Guard: Do you have enough equipment on the ground to take care of Greensburg? He said: Yes, we have enough equipment.

I made the point: If you don't, we are going to push Fort Riley and other places to come up with this equipment.

He said: No, we have enough equipment.

Unfortunately, this has grown into a bit of a controversy as to whether there is sufficient equipment or if too much has been diverted to Iraq. The specific statement by Kansas' head of the National Guard-- the adjutant general--says there is sufficient equipment on the ground to meet this need. I think it is important that be stated and that be clear because these needs are existing, but they are being met and the equipment is there.

I want to make sure that we can respond. I want to note, finally, to anybody who is interested, fortunately, because of the nature of the country and generous people in the United States, they want to help. They want to know what they can do for the people of Greensburg.

There are three places that I suggest they look to contribute: the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and the United Way of the Plains in Wichita, KS. Those three groups are ones that are receiving and funneling funds into Greensburg. Being a small community, it didn't have these sorts of organizations there. But these groups do work. Cash donations are being accepted. There is no current need for donations in-kind, but I hope people will look back and come back in the future and consider that on in-kind items. Those groups would be helpful. The United Way of the Plains established a Greensburg disaster fund to which people can contribute. I hope people will consider contributing to those three entities.

We have a number of different groups that are stepping up, including Pizza Huts through Kansas, which are donating 20 percent of their profits on Thursday, May 10, to go to this United Way of the Plains-- the Greensburg disaster fund. I hope other groups will also do that so Greensburg can rebuild and renew itself and grow into the future. These are tough times for this community, but it is a resilient community.

It impresses me when you see horrific disasters such as this, just a complete devastation, and you talk to the people and they want to rebuild and dig out and they want to go on. That is the resilience of the human spirit in the face of a horrendous disaster, loss of life and property, and a loss of almost an entire community. The people there were talking about how to rebuild. It is beautiful to see that.

We mourn their losses. The people of Greensburg and Kansas are thankful for all the prayers people have given for that community, in all of their tragedy and difficulty. They will be back and they will rebuild and they will go forward and raise the next generation of families in Greensburg and Kiowa County.

The country is going to help out, and I think the country will help in a powerful, positive way, and we will celebrate as Greensburg comes back.

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