Wartime Treatment Study Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I will begin by quoting from an article today in Congress Daily by Bruce Stokes. He sets up in one paragraph pretty much what we are going to talk about in this amendment:

The immigration deal under consideration in the Senate

raises the number of H-1B visas, a long-sought boon for the

high-tech industry that will provide Silicon Valley firms

with skilled workers at rock-bottom salaries, who will

bolster company profits.

This amendment I am offering now is supported by the AFL-CIO. I will read the few paragraphs of the letter they sent today:

Dear Senator Sanders:

On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to offer strong

support for your amendment to the Secure Borders, Economic

Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act.

Your amendment would provide scholarships in math, science,

engineering, and nursing for our domestic workforce by

increasing fees on H-1B employers.

The last paragraph, signed by William Samuel, director of

the Department of Legislation for the AFL-CIO, writes this:

It is completely irresponsible for Congress to increase yet

again the total annual number of available H-1B visas without

addressing the myriad well-documented problems associated

with the H-1B program, or considering long-term solutions

involving access to training and educational opportunities

for domestic workers.

That is William Samuel, director of the Department of Legislation for the AFL-CIO.

The amendment I am offering today also has the support of the Teamsters, the Programmers Guild, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is a long and complicated bill. It touches on a number of very important issues, and some of those issues I strongly agree with, no question. The time is long overdue that we control our borders. No question, the time is long overdue that we begin to hold employers--those people who are hiring illegal immigrants--accountable. Those items are long overdue, and we have to deal with them. This legislation does that. I support that.

In my view, this bill is also responsible in how it deals with the very contentious and difficult issue of how we respond to the reality that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in this country today. This bill carves out a path which eventually leads to citizenship, and that is something I also support.

But--and here is the but: There are a number of provisions in this bill I do not support, that I think are going to be very harmful to the middle-class and working families of this country.

The amendment I am offering right now concentrates on only one aspect of this very long bill and of that problem. That point centers on the state of the economy for working people in our country and the negative impact this legislation will have for millions of workers--low-income workers and professional workers as well.

The fact is there is a war going on in America today. I am not talking about the war in Iraq and I am not talking about the war in Afghanistan; I am talking about the war against the American middle class, the American standard of living and, indeed, the American dream itself.

The American people understand very well that since George W. Bush has become President, an additional 5.4 million Americans have slipped into poverty out of the middle class--5.4 million people who are poor. Nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance. Income for the average American family has fallen by over $1,200 since President Bush has been President, and some 3 million Americans have lost their pensions.

All over this country, from Vermont to California, people get up in the morning and they are working incredibly long hours. People need two incomes in a family to try to make ends meet. Yet, at the end of the day, they are falling further and further behind. There are a lot of reasons for that, but I think this bill, and what this bill proposes to do, is part of the problem.

During the debate over NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China, we were told by President Clinton and many others that, well, yes, globalization and unfettered free trade, such as our trade relations with China, yes, they will cost us blue-collar factory jobs, and the result is that because of our trade agreements, we have lost millions of good-paying blue-collar factory jobs and, in fact, today there are fewer people working in manufacturing than since President Kennedy was in office in the early 1960s.

Yes, we have lost millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs, but what people told us is: Look, don't worry about that. Yes, we are going to lose blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but not to worry because your kids are going to become very sophisticated in terms of using computers, and the future for them is white-collar information technology jobs. We don't need those factory jobs anymore; we have white-collar information technology jobs, and those are the kinds of jobs which are going to be growing. Unfortunately, that has not quite occurred. From January 2001 to January 2006, we lost over 600,000 information technology jobs.

Alan Blinder, the former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, has told us that between 30 and 40 million jobs in this country are in danger of being shipped overseas. In other words, what we are looking at right now is not just the loss of blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but we are looking at the loss of significant numbers of white-color information technology jobs. I know that in my State--and I expect in Senator Kennedy's State and all over this country--we have seen white-collar information technology jobs heading off to India and other countries. There is nothing more painful than to see people in my State--I have gone through this experience--having to train people to do their jobs as those people return to India.

Some of the leading CEOs and information technology companies have told us point blank--this is not a secret--that the new location for high-tech jobs is going to be India and China; it is not going to be the United States of America.

John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, has said:

China will become the IT center of the world, and we can

have a healthy discussion about whether that's in 2020 or

2040. What we're [in Cisco] trying to do is outline an entire

strategy of becoming a Chinese company.

The founder of Intel predicted in the Wall Street Journal that the bulk of our information technology jobs will go to China and India over the next decade. That is the reality. That is what the heads of the information technology industry are telling us.

Over the last few days, a number of us have expressed the concern about the impact of bringing low-wage workers into this country and what that

would mean to Americans at the lower end of the economic ladder. Today, I wish to address a concern I have about what language in this bill could do to the middle class and, indeed, the upper middle class, people who hold professional jobs and who often earn a very good income.

The bill we are discussing today substantially increases the number of well-educated professionals coming into the United States from overseas. This bill, in fact, would allow 115,000 new professionals to come into this country each year, and that number could go up to 180,000.

This program which allows well-educated professionals to come into our country is called the H-1B program. It is currently capped at 65,000 visas a year. Under the language in this bill, the number would increase at least by 50,000 and by as much as 115,000.

The argument that corporate America is using in supporting this increase is that there are just not enough highly educated, highly skilled Americans to fill available job openings in the high-tech industry and in various science fields. Proponents of the H-1B visa program also say it allows us to bring in the ``best and the brightest'' from around the world to help America's competitiveness position. That sounds good on its face, and it may also have the benefit of being true in some cases, but there are those in this Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American high-tech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for substantially lower wages.

First, we should be clear that H-1B visas are not being used only in the high-tech and highly specialized technology and science fields. That is the argument often made, but it is really not true. The reality is that a whole host of jobs in various categories are going to H-1B visa holders.

Let's take a look at some of the jobs that corporate America is telling us that there are just not enough Americans who are smart enough, who are educated enough to perform. Here they are: information technology computer professionals--I guess we can't do that kind of work; university professors--oh, my word, I guess we just don't have enough people to be university professors; engineers, health care workers, accountants, financial analysts, management consultants, lawyers--lawyers, I love that one. Is there anyone in America who doesn't think we have too many lawyers? I guess we need to bring some lawyers in as well. Architects, nurses, physicians, surgeons, dentists, scientists, journalists and editors, foreign law advisers, psychologists, market research analysts, fashion models--Madam President, fashion models--teachers in elementary or secondary schools. In America, we do not have enough people to become teachers in elementary or secondary school. Does anyone really believe that we cannot, with proper salary inducements, bring people into secondary and primary education?

Given that we all know there are many Americans who have college degrees and advanced degrees in these fields who cannot find work, why is it that we need to bring in more and more professional workers from abroad? For those who believe that the law of supply and demand applies to labor costs, the evidence shows there is no shortage of college- educated workers in America. What we learn in economics 101 is if you cannot attract people for certain jobs, you pay them higher wages and you give them better benefits. Unfortunately, in America today, from 2000 to 2004, we have seen the wages of college graduates decline by 5 percent. So on one hand, corporate America says: Oh, my goodness, we can't find people as professionals to fill these jobs, but amazingly enough, wages have gone down for college graduates from 2000 to 2004 by 5 percent. Maybe somebody is not trying hard enough to find American workers to fill these jobs.

In truth, what many of us have come to understand is that these H-1B visas are not being used to supplement the American workforce where we have shortages but, rather, H-1B visas are being used to replace American workers with lower cost foreign workers.

There are studies which conclude that H-1B workers earn less than what U.S. workers make in similar jobs at similar locations. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, wages for H-1B workers average $12,000 a year below the median wage for U.S. workers in computer fields. Another study by Programmers Guild found that foreign tech workers who came to the United States with H-1B visas are paid about $25,000 a year less than American workers with the same skill.

According to the GAO:

Some employers said that they hired H-1B workers in part

because these workers would often accept lower salaries than

similarly qualified U.S. workers.

What is very important to mention here is that some in corporate America are giving the impression that most of the jobs within the H-1B program are for highly specialized technical work which just can't be found in the United States. The truth is that most of the H-1B visas go to people who do not have a Ph.D., who do not have a master's degree, but only have a bachelor's degree, a plain old college degree.

In today's Congress Daily, there is a very insightful article on H-1B visas which is relevant to this debate:

As Ron Hira, a professor at Rochester Institute of

Technology, points out . . . the Labor Department

acknowledges that ``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.''

The article goes on to state:

The median wage for new H-1B computing professionals was

$50,000 in 2005, far below the median for U.S. computing

professionals, according to the annual report of U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services.

These findings are extremely troubling given the promises made to the American people that the future for our economy was with high-skilled, high-paying, high-tech jobs. What we have found is that in the last 4 years, wages for college graduates are going down, and we are finding that people from abroad are coming in and doing jobs American professionals can do and they are doing them for lower wages.

To bolster their argument for increased H-1B visas, proponents point to a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the jobs of the future. That is what it is entitled, ``Jobs of the Future.'' According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the next decade, 2 million jobs will be created in mathematics, engineering, computer science, and physical science. That equates to about 200,000 jobs a year times 10--2 million jobs. Under this legislation, the number of H-1B visas would increase to as many as 180,000 a year. That means virtually every job-- about 90 percent--that will be created in the high-tech sector over the next 10 years could conceivably be taken by a H-1B visa holder. What sense does that make? What are we telling our young people? We are saying: Go to college, get the best education you can, and we have all kinds of jobs available to you, except those jobs in a significant way are going to be taken by people from another country.

We would hope that companies in the United States would have just enough patriotism, maybe just a little bit of patriotism so they would work to hire qualified American workers. But if you look at the statements and conduct of some of these companies, you realize that patriotism, love of country is becoming a dated concept for those who are pushing extreme globalization.

Let me take one case study, and that is Microsoft. In 2003, Microsoft's vice president for Windows engineering was quoted in Business Week as saying:

It is definitely a cultural change to use foreign workers.

But if I can save a dollar, hallelujah.

The CEO of Microsoft, Steven Anthony Ballmer, has said, and this is an interesting quote, very relevant to today's discussion:

Lower the pay of U.S. professionals to $50,000, and it

won't make sense for employers to put up with the hassle of

doing business in developing countries.

In other words, if we lower wages for professionals in this country, maybe our companies won't outsource and go to India or China.

The economic benefit of H-1B visas, though, is not limited to American companies. The truth is, as my colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley, have pointed out, the top companies applying for H-1B visas are actually outsourcing firms from India, known in the industry as ``body shops.'' According to a February 7, 2007, article in BusinessWeek:

Data for the fiscal year 2006, which ended last September,

showed that 7 of the top 10 applicants for H-1B visas are

Indian companies. Giants Infosys Technologies and Wipro took

the top two spots, with 22,600 and 19,400 applications

respectively.

In fact, 30 percent of the H-1B visas approved last year went to nine Indian outsourcing firms. In other words, the very same companies that are involved in the H-1B program of supplying American companies with cheap foreign labor are exactly the same corporations that are involved in outsourcing, providing cheap labor to these very same companies when they move to India. Two sides of the same coin.

In my view, the H-1B system is working against the best interests of the American middle class. It is displacing skilled American workers, it is lowering our wages, and it is part of the process by which the middle class of this country continues to shrink. Meanwhile, it is creating huge profits for foreign companies that traffic in H-1B visas.

I do wish to commend Senators Durbin and Grassley for their work to reform the H-1B program and their efforts to include in the substitute some provisions that strengthen protection for American workers. But as important as these strengthened protections are, the H-1B program, which will be increased from 65,000 slots to 115,000 slots, and potentially even 180,000 slots, continues to pose a threat to American jobs and American wages.

The question is: Where do we go from here? What is our response to this problem? I could certainly offer an amendment to remove the increase in H-1B visas or even to restrict them below the current 65,000 level. But that amendment would be defeated. So where do we go? What is the sensible thing to do? How do we bring people together around this issue?

I think the author of the Congress Daily article I referred to earlier said it quite well when he wrote:

More importantly for the American taxpayer, the current

allocation system for H-1B visas conveys a valuable

resource--access to talented workers who add value to a

company's bottom line--at almost no cost. This is a subsidy

in violation of market principles for firms that are too

quick to appeal to market forces when they are fighting

Washington over export controls or other issues.

The amendment I am offering has two goals. First, raising the H-1B visa fee from $1,500 to $10,000 will go a long way in telling corporate America they are not going to be able to save money by bringing foreign professionals into this country, and they may want to look at the United States of America to find the workers that they need. If they have to pay $10,000, that will cut back on their margin.

Secondly, to the degree it is true that the United States does not have a significant number of skilled workers in certain categories--and in certain categories that may well be true--this new revenue will be dedicated toward providing scholarships to students who are studying in areas where we currently lack professionals.

Specifically, my amendment would create a new American Competitive Scholarship program at the National Science Foundation that would provide merit-based scholarships of up to $15,000 a year, and which are renewable for up to 4 years, to students pursuing degrees in math, science, engineering, medicine, nursing, other health care fields, and other extremely important fields vital to the competitiveness of this Nation. These new scholarships would create the incentive for the best and the brightest of American students to enter these fields where there is reputedly a shortage.

In other words, we have the absurd situation today where we are bringing people from all over the world into this country to do this job, yet we have large numbers of middle-class, working-class families who can't afford to send their kids to college or to graduate school. Well, maybe we ought to pay attention to American workers and American families first.

How will this program be paid for? Under current law, companies applying for H-1B visas pay a $1,500 fee. That fee is split up in a number of ways, with some of it going to scholarships and retraining programs. Unfortunately, it is too small to effectively create a scholarship program of the scale needed to address the claimed shortage in math, science, and technology specialists. This amendment imposes an $8,500 surcharge on those companies seeking H-1B visas. This fee would only apply to those who are required to pay the current $1,500 fee. Therefore, universities and schools would be exempt, as they are under current law. Companies with less than 25 employees would pay only half the fee.

I am sure corporate America will tell us this $8,500 fee is too expensive; that they can't afford it. After all, many of these people are the same exact people who opposed raising the minimum wage above $5.15 an hour. However, this fee represents a very small amount compared to the incredible economic benefits that companies realize from bringing in foreign H-1B visa workers.

H-1B visas are valid for 3 years. So the $8,500 surcharge on an annual basis is only $2,800. Compared to the median $50,000 wage of a new H-1B computing professional, it is only about 5.5 percent of that wage. For this small fee, what would be the benefit to American students and our families? If there are 115,000 H-1B visas issued for which fees are paid, we could provide over 65,000 scholarships each year to our students--65,000. If the number of H-1B visas goes to 180,000, we could provide scholarships to over 100,000 American students.

If the Members of this body believe we need H-1B visas to compensate for a shortage of skilled American professionals, this amendment will attract tens of thousands of America's best and brightest to those fields.

One of the reasons I am offering this amendment, which will provide much needed scholarships for the American middle class, is I was very interested in reading an article that appeared in BusinessWeek on April 19, 2004. In that article, BusinessWeek reported that:

To win favor in China, Microsoft has pledged to spend more

than $750 million on cooperative research, technology for

schools, and other investments.

If Microsoft and other corporations have billions of dollars to invest in technology for schools, research, and other needs in China and other countries, these same companies should have enough money to provide scholarships for middle-class kids in the United States of America.

Another major supporter of the H-1B program is IBM. Last year, IBM made $9.5 billion in profits. Meanwhile, IBM has announced it will be investing $6 billion in India by 2009 and--get this--IBM has also signed deals to train 100,000 software specialists. Where? In Massachusetts? In Vermont? In California? No, in China, according to an August 4, 2003, article in BusinessWeek.

Other major supporters of increasing H-1B workers include Intel, which made $5 billion in profits last year; Bank of America, Caterpillar, General Electric, Boeing, and Lehman Brothers. All of these companies, making billions and billions of dollars in profit, can't afford to pay American workers the wages they need. Well, if they can't do that, at least let them contribute to an important scholarship program.

Let me conclude by saying a vote for this amendment is a vote for preserving American competitiveness in the 21st century, it is a vote for giving our children a brighter future, and it is a vote-- unfortunately all too rare--to help middle-income families in this country who are struggling so hard to make sure their kids can have the education they need.

Madam President, I am not quite sure of the proper legislative approach, but on this amendment, I will be calling for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I have a modification of my amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, it has been more than 200 years since Lewis and Clark first laid eyes on Mount Hood. Today, I propose, with Senator Smith, that the spectacular mountain, seen first by our pioneers, should be preserved for all time.

The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007, which we introduce today, is similar to the bill Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress. It does include several improvements that came about from comments and constructive suggestions

from a variety of groups at home in Oregon.

The legislation also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We appreciate their input and believe their views can help speed the bill's passage.

In tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the views of Oregonians, but, frankly, I hear it from folks in the Midwest, where the Presiding Officer lives, and from people from every nook and cranny in this country who have all come to treasure our spectacular mountain.

This legislation contains a number of provisions of the original Mount Hood legislation I introduced in 2004. The bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of our home State. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. They provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx, and the majestic bald eagle. These are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and the scores and scores of visitors we get from Minnesota and every other part of the country as well.

But the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith differs from the bill I introduced several years ago because it responds to the many comments we have heard. We have received thousands of comments on our proposed legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held at home in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours. Everybody who wanted to speak was given the opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood summit that was held at Timberline Lodge, hosted by Congressmen Walden and Blumenauer. My staff and I met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. More comments came from calls and letters from Oregonians who are saying that now, now, now is the time to preserve Mount Hood.

Overwhelmingly, these comments have urged that we build on Oregon's wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood; in 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed; or in 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood. It is time to plan now to protect this treasure for future generations.

The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited national forest in our country. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated on Mount Hood, the population in the local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County.

The predominant public use of this urban forest is nonmechanized activities such as hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free-flowing rivers, wilderness, and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of loving our wild places to death. We all see Americans coming together to make sure the most special places are protected for future generations.

A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people who could hike on the south side of Mount Hood. Suffice it to say, the public outcry in opposition was enormous. It seems to me, rather than tell people they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for Mount Hood lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the mountain's great places. We ought to ensure that the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased demand for outdoor experiences, and the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith provides these opportunities. Hundreds of people spoke at the public meetings I held throughout the State. I have received 2,500 written comments urging additional wilderness on Mount Hood. There are a few key areas the citizens continually come back and refer to:

First, by astonishing numbers, they want to see additional wilderness on Mount Hood. A large number of Oregonians didn't think enough wilderness had been included, for example, in the legislation that was considered by the other body.

A second area is mountain biking. Some mountain bikers expressed concern that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed. Senator Smith and I had many discussions with them to ensure that would not be the case.

Third, fire protection and forest health was something referred to by many Oregonians. Citizens were concerned about the health of the forest. Those living in towns on the mountain and the gorge were concerned about fire protection in their communities, and we sought to address those issues as well.

An additional concern was developed recreation, with some citizens worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, such as skiing, on Mount Hood.

In each of these areas, Senator Smith and I tried to follow up and be responsive to what citizens at home were saying.

With respect to additional wilderness, there are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,000 acres of new wilderness.

The bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood wilderness--the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, special trails, lava beds that were created during the Mount Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they came to our great State.

To the north and west of the mountain, we add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges that frame the gorge that we marvel at from I-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in all of North America.

To the southwest of the mountain, we add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas such as those around the extremely popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the city of Sandy, and that city unanimously endorsed the draft proposal.

Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness area. These areas provide a critical link between westside forests and eastside ecosystems. This area is known for its spectacular colors in the fall and the best deer and elk hunting in our entire Mount Hood National Forest.

Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937. Our new 2007 bill adds 2,730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts.

Second, in the area of wild and scenic rivers, we protect over 79 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free-flowing rivers. This protects some of the most pristine rivers in our State. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of extraordinary salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been added for protection under our legislation.

Mountain biking is an area where there has been a lot of debate. We believed the local riders raised valid concerns, and we took two steps. First, we proposed the Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres, an increase of over 16,000 additional acres. It is going to offer permanent environmental protection to those beautiful areas, while

providing mountain bikers, recreational users, and others an opportunity to enjoy recreation on the mountain.

Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure that all open mountain biking trails were not included in this proposed legislation.

With respect to fire protection and forest health, we tried to make clear that where there are healthy, older trees, they should not be harvested on Mount Hood or in the gorge. Older healthy stands are most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of overcrowded plantation, second growth that really ought to be thinned. The legislation includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects, and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work.

We happen to think that biomass is one of the most exciting new fields for Oregonians to get into. The opportunity to generate clean energy, help small rural communities, create family wage jobs, is something that we should not miss out on. This legislation tries to tap the potential for progress in the biomass field as well.

Finally, we add fire-safe community zones so that the Secretary of Agriculture will construct a system of fire-safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp.

With respect to developed recreation, we wanted to facilitate recreational opportunities in this area and thus adopted a provision that came from the other body known as ``fee retention'' that would establish a special account for the Mount Hood National Forest.

In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, we have adopted provisions originally coming, again, from language from the other body directing the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

I commend particularly my colleague in the other body, Congressman Blumenauer, one of the real pioneers in thinking about transportation.

Finally, with respect to key relationships with our tribes and our local governmental bodies, we have incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships, emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood area and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountains as they have for generations.

The protections of these important Oregon places is going to depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians. I am very pleased--I am summing up, and the Senate has been patient in giving me this extra time--to say that this has been a bipartisan effort by the Oregon congressional delegation. Senator Smith joins me in introducing this legislation. We believe this brings together our county commissioners, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, Chamber of Commerce, State-elected officials, the Governor. All of those who feel so strongly about protecting Mount Hood rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and joined myself and Senator Smith to try to find common ground to make sure that Mount Hood would be protected for all time.

We are looking forward to perfecting the legislation together in the coming weeks and looking forward to seeing a swift adoption by Congress.

The grandeur of Mount Hood and our special treasures is pretty much in the chromosomes of Oregonians. Protecting our treasures is something about which we feel so strongly. Today is a special day for us because, once again, the citizens of our State have come together and have worked with myself and Senator Smith to take action to protect our treasures.

Mr. President, Oregon's Mount Hood is a cherished State treasure. This wild place is often photographed, visited and enjoyed by scores of Oregonians and non-Oregonians. Today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Smith, a bi-partisan Oregon Wilderness bill: the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007.'' This bill is similar to the one Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress, but it includes several improvements that resulted from comments received from stakeholders. The bill also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which we hope will help speed the bill's passage. In tribute to the great riverdependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the Oregonian wish to protect but also actively experience our State's treasures.

This bill contains many elements of the Mount Hood bill I introduced in 2004, while also incorporating many new provisions to protect and improve the Mount Hood region. This bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of Oregon. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors.

But the bill I introduce today differs from the bill I introduced 2 years ago because it responds to the many comments I heard in the ensuing years. I received thousands of comments on proposed Mount Hood legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge hosted by Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians.

Overwhelmingly, these comments urged me to protect and build on Oregon's Wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood, 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, or 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood--if not more so. To succeed, we must provide the tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. This bill does both.

The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited National Forest in the United States. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area, the population in local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County.

The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.''

A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places. We should ensure the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased use and demand for outdoor experiences--my bill will provide those opportunities.

Of the hundreds of people who attended the meetings I held throughout the State of Oregon, the vast majority spoke in favor of more wilderness. Additionally, I have received more than 2,500 written comments supporting additional wilderness for Mount Hood.

This is what I have heard: First and foremost, I heard that Oregonians in astonishing numbers support protecting Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge with additional wilderness. A large number of Oregonians didn't think that enough wilderness areas had been included in the House proposal.

Some mountain bikers expressed concerns that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed.

Some people were worried about forest health, and those living in towns on the mountain and in the gorge were concerned about fire protection for their communities.

Some people were worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, like skiing, on Mt. Hood.

This is what my bill does to address those concerns: There are currently l89,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,600 new acres of wilderness.

This bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mt. Hood Wilderness-- the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, the historic Tilly Jane trail, lava beds that were created during the Mt. Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they were settling our great State. To the north and west of the mountain, I would add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges framing the Gorge that we all marvel at from 1-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in North America. To the southwest of the mountain I add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas like those around popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the City of Sandy, which unanimously endorsed the draft proposal. Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness. These areas provide a critical link between Westside forests and Eastside ecosystems. This area is known for beautiful fall color and the best deer and elk hunting in the entire Mount Hood National Forest. Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge--built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937--to its former grandeur. Our new 2007 bill adds 2730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts.

My proposal seeks to protect over 79.6 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free flowing rivers. This includes some of the most pristine and beautiful rivers in Oregon. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of superb salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been proposed for protection.

I believe that local riders raised some valid concerns, so I did two things. I have proposed Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres--an increase of over 16,700 acres. It will offer greater, permanent environmental protections to those beautiful areas, while providing mountain bikers and other recreational users an opportunity to continue to recreate in these areas. Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure all open mountain biking trails were not included in my proposed wilderness.

I protect wilderness, where there are healthy, older trees that should never be harvested on Mount Hood or in the Gorge. Older, healthy stands are the most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of over-crowded, plantation, second-growth that should be thinned. My bill includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work. In addition, I added fire safe community zones so that the Secretary will construct a system of fire safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp.

In order to facilitate developed recreation opportunities, I have adopted the House provisions establishing a ``feeretention'' provision that will establish an account for the Mount Hood National Forest. In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, I have adopted provisions, originally coming from the language passed in the House last Congress, directing the Secretary and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

I have also incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood region and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountain's resources, as they have for generations.

The protection of these important Oregon places will depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians and particularly that of my Oregon colleagues here in the Congress. I am especially pleased that Senator Smith has joined me in developing this bipartisan legislation and putting forth our proposal for wilderness. I am hopeful everyone will pull together: county Commissioners, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, chambers of commerce, State elected officials, the Governor, and the Oregon delegation here in the Capitol. I look forward to perfecting legislation together in the coming weeks, and seeing its swift adoption by Congress thereafter. Then the grandeur of Mount Hood and other Oregon treasures can be assured for future generations.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act of 2007.'' Cosponsors joining me in introducing this legislation are: Senators Enzi, Feingold, Thomas, Dorgan, Baucus and McCaskill. This legislation seeks to level the playing field for agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and strengthening enforcement of both laws by USDA. I intend to use this legislation as the basis for developing a proposed competition title in the new farm bill this year.

Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation. Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely critical for independent livestock and poultry

producers. The statistics speak for themselves. For example, today, only four firms control 84 percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40 percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline. Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms can exert tremendous power over the industry.

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, GIPSA, at USDA has the responsibility to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. This Act is critical, and protects livestock producers from unfair, unjustly discriminatory and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. For years I have had my doubts about whether USDA was serious about enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act. In 2005, I requested an audit by USDA's Inspector General to investigate USDA's oversight, and enforcement of the law. Last year, the Inspector General confirmed the concerns I had and uncovered even more systemic problems. The report described widespread inaction, management of the agency actively blocking employees from conducting investigations into anti- competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations conducted.

That is why today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act and create an office of special counsel on competition matters. The special counsel would be appointed by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some would argue that Senate advice and consent is not needed. However, for over five years, GIPSA failed to move competition investigations forward and no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA was failing to enforce the law.

In the past year, GIPSA has worked in good faith to improve its enforcement activities. However, GIPSA only investigates potential violations of the law, they do not litigate and follow-through with the investigation to the end. Litigating cases is reserved only for USDA's Office of General Counsel, OGC, unless they refer it to the Department of Justice.

USDA's Office of General Counsel has not been active on cases involving anti-competitive practices in recent years since GIPSA was not referring cases to them. To be sure, only two cases involving anti- competitive practices were referred to OGC in 5 years. But there are concerns that OGC is not as committed to enforcing competition investigations as they should be. This lack of commitment was clearly evident last year in testimony provided by OGC Assistant General Counsel in the Trade Practices Division at a hearing by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Concerns about OGC's attitude toward enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act are not new. USDA's Inspector General stated in its 1997 audit that Packers and Stockyards program officials were concerned that OGC did not want to litigate competition cases ``because they are complicated and time consuming'' and OGC had ``limited expertise'' with them. In 2000, the Government Accountability Office found ``disagreements'' between OGC and GIPSA regarding the interpretation of the Act's competition provisions. By combining investigation and prosecution activities into the proposed special counsel office, designated to handle competition issues, it reduces the ability for investigations to be batted back and forth within USDA.

This legislation also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Packers and Stockyards Act prohibits unfair, unjustly discriminatory and anti-competitive practices, but some courts have ruled that producers need to prove an impact on competition in the market in order to prevail in such cases involving unfair or deceptive practices. For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition. The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

This legislation also modifies the Packers and Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have the authority to enforce violations because the enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry. This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who raise broilers.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to strengthen their position in the marketplace without being discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this act was passed with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law. The act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any reason possible to not do business with certain producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to an association.

I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many require contracts to conduct business. With so few buyers, it increases the chances that some firms will force unfair contracts upon producers. As a result, some producers have little or no choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives.

This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that the contract spell out in clear language what is required by the producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses, ensuring producers the ability to share the contract with family members or a lawyer to help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. This legislation also prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without notice when producers have made large capital investments as a condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy in the courts.

Mr. President, producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded market in which to conduct business. This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more fairly.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon, Senator Smith, to introduce the Safe Babies Act of 2007.

It is a tragic fact that America's child welfare system is failing our most vulnerable. From birth to age five, children develop their social, emotional, cognitive and moral capacities more rapidly than at any other time in life. Early experiences and relationships are absolutely critical to future development; they set the stage for how well individuals learn, think, control their emotions, and relate to others.

This critical period is a time of tremendous promise, but also a time of great vulnerability. Unfortunately, infants and toddlers are disproportionately affected by child abuse and neglect. Children between birth and age three are twice as likely as older children to become victims of maltreatment, and are three times more likely to be placed in foster care. Abuse and neglect during this significant period can lead to perilous developmental outcomes, including school failure, delinquency and crime, substance abuse, and mental health problems.

Yet the current child welfare system does a particularly poor job of serving infants and toddlers. Once in foster care, infants and toddlers are more likely to be abused. And they stay in foster care longer than older children. More than 40 percent of infants and toddlers involved in a maltreatment investigation are developmentally delayed, yet only 10 percent of these young people currently receive treatment for developmental problems.

A Federal review of 19 States' performance on child welfare outcomes found that all of the States received failing grades on outcomes related to providing adequate physical and mental health services.

Without intervention, we put our future generation at risk and perpetuate the cycle of maltreatment. But we can alter these developmental outcomes by ensuring that children are in safe, permanent homes and have access to necessary mental and physical health care. The Safe Babies Act authorizes funding for juvenile courts to create Court Teams for the integrated handling of infant and toddler abuse and neglect cases. By bringing together the legal, child welfare, and children's services communities, we can promote the health and well- being of our babies and toddlers.

First, this bill establishes a National Court Teams Resource Center. This Resource Center would provide grants and technical assistance to juvenile courts for the creation of local Court Teams to better handle infant and toddler abuse and neglect cases. Few judges have all the necessary knowledge about early childhood development and they frequently lack resources in the community for services necessary for young children. They are often frustrated by the piecemeal provision of services and the overburdened child welfare system. To adequately serve children, they need the expertise of child welfare workers, Guardians Ad Litem, Court Appointed Special Advocates, substance abuse treatment providers and mental health care providers. Court Teams bring together this expertise. Through monthly case reviews, judges can coordinate efforts by all members of the team to ensure efficient and effective provision of services. The goal of these courts is to prevent multiple placements for infants and toddlers in foster care, secure needed services, and find a permanent home for these children as quickly as possible.

Court Teams work with families in an effort to reunite children with their parents. By bringing together multiple service providers, they can facilitate opportunities for parents to learn to create a safe and nurturing home environment. Court Teams ensure support for future reunification only when the

parent is ready and able to step up to provide an appropriate and safe environment. We know from research that each visit between a child and birth parent triples the likelihood of achieving permanence. Through the Court Teams, judges are able to coordinate education and supervision so parents can visit their children and continue to nurture a loving bond.

Although reunification with parents is the ultimate goal, when that is not possible, Court Teams are also focusing on Plan B. By conducting concurrent planning, Court Teams are more likely to find an appropriate placement that will lead to permanency and minimize disruptions. By supporting training for foster parents and newly reunified biological parents, we can prevent children from being bounced around in the foster care system.

Court Teams are also able to coordinate services for children. Judges and child welfare services are able to collaborate to include necessary medical and developmental interventions. By improving access to mental health and substance abuse treatment for parents and children, Court Teams make sure children are able to access needed services and increase the chances of successful, healthy development.

Finally, Court Teams provide services and supports for families to preserve and stabilize homes for children. Judges are able to use court oversight to ensure compliance, facilitate visits with caregivers to promote positive attachments, and make sure that children are in safe environments after placement.

The Safe Babies Act will make an important impact in the way we treat infants and toddlers in the court system. By facilitating involvement from all parties, Court Teams are better equipped to ensure that young children have the community support and services they need. Early evaluation research in the Miami/Dade County court project finds a high rate of permanency for children in the court and increased quality of parent-child interaction. By finding permanent homes, children were able to escape the limbo of the foster care system. More importantly, the court was successful in preventing any future recurrence of abuse or neglect.

Together we can work to protect the safety and well-being of our infants and toddlers. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that children are placed quickly in safe and loving homes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is passed and signed into law.

Mr. President, as you may have heard, today we are launching the Partnership for Play Every Day and it has been spearheaded by three terrific organizations: the YMCA, the National Recreation and Park Association, and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Together, they have 350 years of experience in helping our kids to be physically active or, to use the old-fashioned word, ``to play.''

More than a century ago, these groups came together to support the Playground Movement, which took kids out of factories and coal mines, and gave them parks and playgrounds where they could be children again.

Well, today we face a different challenge. As we confront an epidemic of childhood obesity, as many new elementary schools are built without playgrounds, as recess and PE are phased out of so many of our schools, we need a 21st century Playground Movement. And that's what we are launching this morning.

On a personal note, I have been a lifelong admirer of the YMCA. When I was in my early 20s and aspiring to join the Navy as a fighter pilot, they told me: First you've got to learn how to swim. So what did I do? I signed up at the Y in downtown Des Moines for swimming lessons.

Well, the Y was there for me, just as the Y is there for millions of American families, giving them the facilities and tools to stay fit and healthy.

You know, there is something fundamentally wrong when kids spend their free time parked in front of the TV instead of playing in parks.

I mentioned the childhood obesity epidemic. ``Epidemic'' is not my word. That's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call it. Today, nearly 15 percent of American children and teenagers are obese. A quarter of the children between the ages of 5 and 10 already show the early warning signs of heart disease. Cases of adult-onset diabetes in children--which used to be almost unheard of--have exploded tenfold in the last two decades.

Add it all up, and experts say there is a very real prospect that today's kids could be the first generation in American history to have a shorter lifespan than their parent's generation.

And that is unacceptable. We are not going to let that happen. And that is why we have set the goal of ensuring that every child in America gets 60 minutes of play and physical activity every day.

Hand in hand with this important new initiative, today I am honored to introduce with Senator Hillary Clinton a bill called the PLAY Every Day Act. That first word, PLAY, is an acronym for ``Promoting Lifelong Active Communities.''

The PLAY Every Day Act will help to promote the national physical- activity standards for both children and adults.

To that end, the legislation will do two things:

One, it will mandate the development of a well-validated assessment tool called the ``community play index,'' to identify barriers preventing young people from being physically active in a given community.

And two, it will help local coalitions to use this ``community play index'' as they craft plans to promote physical activity and wellness in their communities.

My vision is to have every community in America focused on promoting

health and preventing disease--instead of just dealing with the bad consequences of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

By the way, I am grateful to the good corporate citizens that are joining in the Partnership for Play Every Day, including PepsiCo, Toyota, Kellogg Company, General Mills, PlayCore, and Landscape Structures. Your support of this legislation and new initiative is going to be critical to the Partnership's success.

So, again, I salute all the players in this new Partnership. Together, we can build a better, healthier future for America's children.

Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside in order to call up amendment No. 1194.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Akaka, Lautenberg, and Inouye be added as cosponsors of this amendment, along with Senator Hagel and myself.

Madam President, the legislation currently before us curtails the ability of American citizens, or U.S. permanent residents, to petition for their families to be reunified here in America. Right now, if the bill goes untouched, this bill sets two different standards for groups of people, and it sets it in a way that is fundamentally unfair. One group is those who have followed the law and obeyed the rules by having their U.S. citizen relative or U.S. lawful permanent resident petition to bring them into this country legally, and one more favorably--it treats the next group much more favorably, one who has entered or remained in the country without proper documentation. So those who have obeyed the rules, followed the law, relatives of U.S. citizens, get treated in an inferior way to those who have not followed the law, who get treated in a better way. Let me explain how.

The Menendez-Hagel amendment simply states that at a minimum, the two groups should be treated equally under the bill. Our amendment is about fundamental fairness. All this amendment does is to make sure both groups face the same cutoff date.

Right now, those who are in our Nation in an undocumented status are allowed under the bill to potentially earn permanent residency so long as they entered this country before January 1, 2007. All our amendment says is that those who followed the rules who are waiting outside of the country who are the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens shouldn't be treated worse because they obeyed the law and followed the rules. They should at least be treated the same, not worse. Therefore, they should have the same date: January 1, 2007. All this amendment does is simply apply the same standard, the same cutoff date to those who followed the rules so that those who did obey the law and who legally applied for their green card can potentially earn permanent residency so long as they apply for their visa before January 1, 2007.

Now, this is a somewhat complicated issue, so let me explain exactly what the legislation as it is currently drafted does if we don't adopt this amendment. Right now, there is a family

backlog of people who have applied for legal permanent residency. These are the people waiting outside of the country, waiting as they are claimed and have their petitions by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident saying: I want to bring my father or my mother here. I want to bring my child here. I want to bring my brother or sister here. This legislation, as currently drafted, does away with the rights of U.S. citizens to make that claim if, in fact, those individuals have not filed their application before May 1, 2005.

It is important to pay attention to that May 1, 2005 date because it is nearly 2 years before the cutoff for people who are here in an undocumented status--those who didn't follow the law, obey the rules, and those who may obviously have no U.S. citizen to claim them. So it actually says to a U.S. citizen and a U.S. permanent resident: You have an inferior right and a right that is now lost because it exists under the law as it is today. That right is lost, and your right is inferior to the rights of those individuals who have not followed the rules and obeyed the law. So as this bill seeks to clear the legal family backlog, we say: Don't treat a U.S. citizen worse. Don't treat a U.S. citizen worse. The legislation as currently drafted sets this arbitrary date of May 1, 2005, yet gives everybody else who didn't follow the law the date of January 1, 2007. That means a lot of family gets cut off. The rights of U.S. citizens get cut off as well.

Right now, the legislation also says that if you overstayed a visa or came to this country without proper documentation before January 1, 2007, you can ultimately become a lawful, permanent resident between the 9th and 13th year of the process that the bill describes. But if you applied for a visa outside of the country and you applied by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident and you followed the rules, there is no-- no--guarantee you will ever be able to be reunified with your family.

Our amendment would remedy this injustice by moving the cutoff date for those who legally applied for visas to January 1, 2007--the same cutoff date that is currently set for the legalization of undocumented immigrants. And we would add the appropriate number of green cards to ensure we don't create a new backlog or cause the 8-year deadline for clearing the family backlog to slip by a few years. So we stay within the framework of the underlying bill; we just bring justice and fairness to the bill for those who have obeyed the law, followed the rules, and are the family members of U.S. citizens.

Now, why shouldn't legal applicants be able to keep their place in line if they applied before January of 2007? Clearly, this legislation, as it is currently written, is unfair to those who legally applied for a visa. The legislation unfairly says that those who followed the rules lose their place in line. The legislation unfairly says that those who followed the rules will have to wait at least an additional 8 years before they even become eligible to compete--eligible to compete--for a new proposed merit-based green card. The legislation unfairly says that those who followed the rules would have to wait a total of 10 years in addition to the time they have been waiting--in addition to the time they have been waiting--before they are eligible to compete under a new and different system, with a different set of rules, and no guarantee they will ever be able to be reunited with their family member, that U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Clearly, at a minimum, we should allow those who played by the rules to have the same cutoff date of January 1, 2007.

Now, not only is it unfair to make people who follow the rules wait longer than those who chose not to, it is also wrong to make people who applied under our current system have to reapply under a totally different one. Those who applied on May 1, 2005, or after, applied under our current immigration system that values family ties and employment at a premium, unlike under this bill, would now be subject to a completely different standard that is primarily concerned with education and skill levels. This is like changing the rules of the game halfway through it. People who applied after May 2005 would not only lose credit for the up to 2 years they have been waiting under the legal process, they would also have to apply under a completely different system than the one under which they originally applied.

Now, let's think of how fundamentally unfair that is.

In this photo is the late Marine LCpl Jose Antonio Gutierrez, a permanent resident of the United States--the first American casualty in the war in Iraq. For people similar to the late Jose Antonio Gutierrez who served their country, for them, under this bill--he was not only here legally but was serving his country--oh, no, you apply for your family by May 1, 2005, or, sorry, we will give those people who don't follow the rules and obey the law a preference. But you, who served your country, you who wore the uniform, you who have done everything right--no, you have an inferior right.

Is that the legacy we leave to people who have served their country, a legal permanent resident? Sometimes people don't even know we have legal permanent residents fighting in the service of the United States--tens of thousands. That is fundamentally unfair.

In this photo is another group of lawful permanent residents, ``first called to duty.'' They were in different services of the Armed Forces of the United States, serving their country, in harm's way. Guess what. Under the bill, you have family abroad, you applied for them, you did the right thing, and you told them to wait. After May 1, 2005, sorry, Charlie, your right is gone, just like that. Your value and service doesn't matter. All these soldiers, sailors, and marines--all different services--all of them are ultimately serving their country.

Under this bill, we take people such as them, and so many others, and vitiate their rights. That is fundamentally unfair. These people not only are serving our country abroad, they are protecting our airports, our seaports, and our borders. They risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world to protect us at home. To petition for your sister to come to live with you in America, you lose that right if you filed after May 1, 2005. You didn't do the right thing, but you get the benefit of 2 years more than those who obeyed the laws and followed the rules--brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers. It is hard to imagine that one would have that right taken away from them.

Here is another case for you to consider. You are a U.S. citizen, you have paid your taxes, you have served your Nation, you attend church, and you make a good living. You are a good citizen. You petition to have your adult child come to America, but you did so after the arbitrary date of May 1, 2005. Under this bill, that U.S. citizen would lose their right. However, those undocumented in the country after May 1, 2005, get a benefit. It is hard to imagine, but it is true.

Right now, this bill is unfair and nonsensical, capriciously punishing those who have followed the rules and legally applied for a green card. What message, then, do we send? I have heard a lot about the rule of law, a lot about waiting in line, a lot about all those who should have followed our immigration laws. Yet what message does the bill send? You followed it, but your rights are vitiated, taken away-- not the rights of the family member waiting abroad to come here, it is the rights of the U.S. citizen to make the claim for that individual. That is what bothers me about the underlying legislation. They are taking my right away and your right away as a U.S. citizen.

We must make sure that people who have played by the rules and legally applied to immigrate here are not arbitrarily placed at a disadvantage in respect to those who are in this country in an undocumented status. As I have said many times before, comprehensive immigration reform must be tough but must also be practical and fair and tough on border security. Certainly, we have done that here--this bill even moved more to the right--by providing a pathway to earned citizenship.

At the same time, we have to be fair by rewarding those who have followed the law. I think we have to remain true to those principles. Let me give you a little sense of this. I have heard a lot about chain migration. You know, it is interesting, we have seen during history that when we want to dehumanize something, take out the humanity of something, when we want to make it an abstract object, we find a word or a

phrase for it, such as chain migration. I have heard a lot about what a ``nuclear family'' is and is not.

I will use these paperclips to demonstrate this. I always thought a mother or father, son or daughter, brother and sister was not a chain; I thought that was a circle of strength. It is a circle of strength within our community. It is a sense of what our society is all about, regardless of what altar you worship at, what creed you believe in. I thought, when I heard the speeches of family values on the floor, that this was a circle of strength and dignity and the very essence of what is essential for our communities to grow and prosper.

What does this bill do? It says that is not a value--a mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister. It is not a value. That is what this bill does. Let me tell you what family values have meant to this country. Here on the chart are names of Americans who had immigrant parents. A lot of them probably could not have come to this country under the bill as proposed. Look at what their offspring have provided for this country.

A gentleman known as General Petraeus happens to be leading our efforts in Iraq. He is our big hope to turn it around. He had immigrant parents.

Thomas Edison, from my home State of New Jersey, Menlo Park, invented electricity. He may not have been the originator of that in this country if his parents had not come here.

Martin Sheen, from the show ``West Wing,'' would not have been here under this bill.

Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine, which was a great achievement. His parents would have likely not made it here under this bill.

Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--he is somebody who is admired on both sides of the aisle--he would not have made it here under this bill.

Antonin Scalia--I may not agree with him all the time, but he is a distinguished member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Several of these names you might recognize as Republicans. He would not have likely made it here under the bill as proposed; Carl Sandburg, a great poet, who wrote of our humanity as a people; the late Peter Jennings, who talked to us every night on television.

These are all people who have contributed in so many different ways to our country because their parents came to America. Family values have enriched America.

Let me give you another group of citizens. These, unlike those others who were born in the United States, are naturalized U.S. citizens, meaning they weren't born in this country. They came here through the immigration process of our country. I would like to think some of them have contributed some good things:

The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am not sure he would have made it into this country; Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State; Ted Koppel, who brought us the news on ``Nightline:'' Levi Strauss, you have probably worn his products; Desi Arnez, one of my favorites, a Cuban immigrant, who loved Lucy every day on national TV; Bob Hope was a naturalized U.S. citizen. He brought an enormous amount of joy to our service men and women across the globe; Patrick Ewing, a great basketball player; Oscar de la Renta, a great designer; Liz Claiborne; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Albert Einstein. His parents never would have made it under this bill; Andrew Carnegie of the Carnegie Foundation; Joseph Pulitzer, of Pulitzer Prize fame; Michael J. Fox, who talks to us every day about the necessity for stem cell research and the incredible challenges of Americans with Parkinson's. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The list goes on and on. The bottom line is that under this bill, so many of those, such as General Petraeus, Colin Powell, Thomas Edison, and Antonin Scalia, whose parents came to this country and therefore gave them the opportunity to be born in America, they would not have made it under this bill. Family values. Those who did not have the good fortune to be born here, but because their parents immigrated here, were naturalized U.S. citizens. They have contributed greatly.

So let's not dehumanize this reality. This isn't about ``chain migration.'' This isn't about some abstract sense of how we try to change a very important concept--family, family values, reunification, strengthening communities, and having great Americans who have altered the course of history and made this country the greatest experiment and country in the history of the world.

Our amendment simply says to all those who have espoused family values, it is time to put your vote with your values. It says don't snuff out the right of a U.S. citizen or a U.S. permanent resident, these guys in this picture--don't snuff out their right, all permanent residents of the U.S. originally, don't snuff out their rights to be able to claim family members. Don't treat those of us who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents worse than those people who didn't obey the law, follow the rules, and came into the country. Don't do this. At least treat us equally. At least treat us equally.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, we are introducing legislation to give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco products. Congress cannot in good conscience allow the Federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products. Health experts believe this legislation is the most important action Congress could take to protect children from this deadly addiction.

This is a bipartisan, bicameral initiative. The bill that Senator Cornyn and I are introducing already has over 25 cosponsors. Congressman Waxman and Davis will introduce identical legislation in the House. Our bill has the support of a broad coalition of public health organizations led by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. They all recognize the importance of enacting this bill this year.

The legislation we are introducing today is well known. It is the same bill that passed the Senate in 2004, and that we introduced in the last Congress. However, in this new Congress, the likelihood of passage is greatly enhanced. Last November's election swept away many of the barriers to passage from prior years. We believe 2007 is the year that legislation empowering the FDA to regulate tobacco products will finally become law.

We intend to move forward on the legislation quickly. I have already scheduled a hearing in the HELP Committee for February 27, and a markup is planned soon thereafter.

The stakes are vast. Four thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and one thousand become daily smokers. More than one-third of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. Cigarettes kill well over 400,000 Americans each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, and suicide combined. Congress's response to a public health problem of this magnitude is long overdue.

Regulating the conduct of tobacco companies is as necessary today as it has been in years past. The facts presented in the Federal Government's landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry demonstrate that the misconduct is substantial and ongoing. The decision of the court states: ``The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity . . . Defendants continue to engage in conduct that is materially indistinguishable from their previous actions, activity that continues to this day.''

We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

The tobacco industry currently spends over $15 billion a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that nearly 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood.

Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry

advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products.

If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the authority to stop tobacco advertising that glamorizes smoking to kids. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment.''

FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every State makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes.

The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute.

The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong.

The nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive.

A newly released analysis by the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrates that cigarette manufacturers are still manipulating nicotine levels. Between 1998 and 2005, they significantly increased the nicotine yield from major brand name cigarettes. The average increase in nicotine yield over the period was 11 percent.

The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end.

Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public. Over 40 million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave 40 million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded.

Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. Some are already on the market making unsubstantiated claims. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety.

Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively.

This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children, to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors, to help smokers overcome their addiction, to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them, and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.

Enacting this bill this year is the right thing to do for America's children. They are depending on us. By passing this legislation, we can help them live longer, healthier lives.

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

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Bond in introducing ``The Arthritis Prevention, Control and Cure Act.''

Our goal in this important initiative is to provide a strong federal response to arthritis. Early diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management of arthritis can control its symptoms, improve the quality of life of patients, and Federal action will improve the lives of the family members and caregivers of those affected by the disease.

Arthritis exits in more than a hundred different forms. It's one of the most devastating diseases impairing the health of the American people. It's second only to heart disease as a cause of work disability. It undermines everyday activities such as walking, dressing and bathing for more than seven million Americans.

One out of very five adults in the United States suffers from some form of arthritis. The number of patients in the U.S. with arthritis will keep growing as the number of older Americans continues to increase dramatically in the next few decades. Today, 8.7 million adults, ages 18 through 44, have arthritis and millions of others are at risk of developing the disease.

In fact, arthritis is one of the most prevalent chronic illnesses and the

leading cause of disability among Americans over age 15. More than 40 percent of adults with arthritis are limited in their activities because of their arthritis. By 2030, nearly 25 percent of the projected United States adult population will have arthritis and these numbers don't account for the current trends in obesity, which may contribute to future cases of the disease.

It is an illness that affects all types of people in the U.S., not just older Americans. Arthritis knows no boundaries. Men, women and children are all afflicted with the disease. According to the Arthritis Foundation, 24 million women and 17 million men have been diagnosed with arthritis by their doctors. Women are still disproportionately affected by the disease.

Nearly 3 out of every 1,000 American children are affected by arthritis. The devastating effects of pediatric arthritis justifies greater investment by the federal government in research and to identify more effective treatments.

Special concerns are raised by juvenile arthritis because of its impact on family relationships, school life, dating, sports and other aspects active, growing youths. Teens and young adults entering the workforce face even greater challenges.

Arthritis an other rheumatic diseases cost our economy $128 billion annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2003, the cost was equivalent to 1.2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. $80 million of that amount were direct costs for medical care and $47 million were indirect costs for lost earnings. National medical costs attributed to arthritis grew by 24 percent between 1997 and 2003, with an increase attributed to the growing number of people affected with the disease.

In 1975, Congress enacted the National Arthritis Act to encourage basic and clinical research, establish Multipurpose Arthritis Centers and expand clinical knowledge of the illness. The act was successful in implementing and continued funding of research and has led to important advances in the control, treatment and prevention of the illness.

Early diagnosis, treatment and management can control symptoms and improve the quality of life. Weight control and exercise can help lower risks. Patient education, training and self-management also contribute to greater control of these diseases. Innovative and increasingly effective drug therapies, joint replacements, and other therapeutic alternatives are being developed.

Despite much research identifying effective interventions, many of them are not being used well enough and the inevitable result is unnecessary loss of life, poorer health and poorer quality of life.

Our legislation will expand the effort to find new ways to prevent, treat and care for patients with arthritis and related rheumatic diseases.

It will enhance the National Arthritis Action Plan by providing additional support to federal, state and private efforts to prevent and manage arthritis. It will establish a National Arthritis Education and Outreach Campaign to inform the health care profession and the public about the most successful self-management strategies for controlling the illness.

With greater coordination and intensification of federal research, this bill will organize a National Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases Summit to look at the challenges and opportunities related to these efforts.

In addition, the bill will provide greater attention to juvenile arthritis research by offering planning grants for research specific to juveniles and by prioritizing the activities that create better understanding of the incidence and outcomes associated with juvenile arthritis.

Finally the bill contains incentives to encourage health professionals to enter the field of pediatric rheumatology by education loan repayment and career development awards.

I urge my colleagues to support this public health initiative to reduce the pain and disability of arthritis. Early diagnosis, effective treatment and greater investment in research and prevention can help us wage a stronger battle against one of the most widespread and devastating conditions affecting our Nation.