To amend chapter 40 of title 18, United States Code, to exempt the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of explosive materials for delivery to a federally recognized Indian tribe or an agency of such a tribe from various Federal criminal prohibitions relating to explosives.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Chairman Rahall for yielding me time and for his outstanding leadership of the Natural Resources Committee and his Office of Indian Affairs in moving this important legislation forward.

I would also like to thank the Judiciary Committee chairman, Mr. Conyers, as well as my good friend, Mr. Scott, chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Through their efforts on the Judiciary Committee, the bill has been strengthened in its final form.

I would like to thank my good friend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and his staff for his strong partnership in moving this important bill through the House.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent. The Tribal Law and Order Act will improve law enforcement efforts and combat sexual assault and drug smuggling in Indian Country. It reauthorizes existing programs designed to strengthen tribal courts, police departments, and correction centers, as well as programs to prevent and treat alcohol and substance abuse, and improve opportunities for at-risk Indian youth.

A vote against this bill is a vote to keep the status quo, a status quo where it's estimated that one in three American Indian women and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetime.

A vote against this bill will maintain the status quo, a status quo where drug trafficking organizations are targeting Indian reservations to manufacture and distribute illegal substances because of the lack of law enforcement on Indian land.

Native American families, like all families, deserve a basic sense of safety and security in their community. Law enforcement is one of the Federal Government's trust obligations to federally recognized tribes. Yet as tribes all across the country know all too well, Congress is failing to meet that obligation.

The situation is particularly challenging for large, land-based reservations in South Dakota and elsewhere. Officials from the Oglala Sioux Department of Public Safety recently had six officers to cover the Pine Ridge Reservation, an area larger than the States of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.

The kinds of problems that arise from such a limited law enforcement presence include the case of a young woman living on the Pine Ridge Reservation. She'd received a restraining order against an ex-boyfriend who battered her. One night she was home alone, woke up as he attempted to break into her home with a crowbar. She immediately called the police, but due to a lack of land lines for telephones and spotty cell phone coverage, the call was cut off three times before she reported her situation to the dispatcher. The nearest officer was about 40 miles away, and even though the police officer who took the call started driving to her home at 80 miles an hour, by the time he arrived the woman was severely bloodied and beaten and the perpetrator had escaped.

Today, the House has an opportunity to deal with these issues, to deal with these issues and so many others to make a difference in the lives of Native Americans across the country. The Senate has already unanimously approved it.

Senator Jon Kyl, the Republican whip, said when the bill passed the Senate, ``Many tribal communities today lack the support and tools needed to combat the terrible violence and crimes they experience. That's why I applaud the passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act, which authorizes desperately needed funds for law enforcement in Indian Country.''

Senator John Barrasso, vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee added, ``Through this bill we are sending a strong message that Indian reservations will not be a haven for criminal activity, drug trafficking, gangs, or abuse.''

The Tribal Law and Order Act also has the support of the administration, the National Congress of American Indians, and many other tribal, State, and local governments and organizations.

We have worked for years, over many Congresses, in field hearings where Members of this body and their staff have traveled to South Dakota and to other Native American communities to fully understand the magnitude of this problem and the importance of acting in this Congress, working with the Senate in a bipartisan way through weeks and months of negotiations to make responsible changes to this bill to address the concerns that Members on both sides of the aisle had expressed about the bill. We have made those changes.

Senator Coburn has been satisfied that we have made those changes. We have worked diligently in the committees of jurisdiction to address the changes, to ask what it is that any Member has to get them to a ``yes.'' We can't delay any further. Native American women and their children are the most at risk. The statistics bear it out.

I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this important bipartisan bill and send it to the President for his signature.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the following letters and resolutions in support of H.R. 725.

National Congress

of American Indians,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2010.

Hon. John Conyers,

Chair, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith: On behalf

of the National Congress of American Indians, I write to

strongly urge your support for the revised version of the

Tribal Law and Order Act, unanimously approved in the Senate

on June 23, 2010, and included within a House-passed version

of the Indian Arts & Crafts Act (H.R. 725). This bipartisan

legislation is of critical importance to improving public

safety on Indian reservations throughout the country, and we

urge you to support proceeding with the passage of the

legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the

companion bill (H.R. 1924) in

December, and Marcus Levings, Chairman of the Mandan, Arikara

& Hidatsa Nation, provided testimony on behalf of NCAI that

also detailed the effects of crime on his tribe and his

family. Despite the federal responsibilities to protect

Indian communities, the violent crime rate on reservations is

two and a half times the national average; Native women are

victims of rape and sexual assault at three times the

national average; and tribal lands are increasingly the

target of drug trafficking and gang-related activity. These

problems are exacerbated by the fact that the Department of

Justice is subject to little oversight on its performance.

The Denver Post has reported that the federal government

declines to prosecute 62% of Indian country criminal cases

referred to federal prosecutors, including 75% of child and

adult sex crimes. We would like to particularly thank

Chairman Scott and the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland

Security Subcommittee for their work on the legislation.

The Senate bill has incorporated a number of changes at the

suggestion of the Subcommittee, as well as amendments

suggested by both Democratic and Republican Senators. In

addition, the bill has received a great deal of input from

the Department of Justice, the federal Judicial Conference,

and from tribal leaders and law enforcement officials across

the country. As approved by the Senate, H.R. 725 is well-

vetted and bi-partisan legislation that is necessary to

address the regrettable public safety trends that exist on

Indian lands.

When enacted, the Tribal Law & Order Act will:

Require the Department of Justice to maintain and compile

data on declinations of Indian country cases and submit

annual reports to Congress;

Authorize the DOJ to appoint special tribal prosecutors to

assist in prosecuting Indian country crimes;

Expand the special law enforcement commissions program,

clarify the standards required of tribal officers, and permit

flexibility in reaching MOUs between the BIA and tribal

governments that seek special commissions;

Allow tribal law enforcement personnel to obtain training

at various accredited facilities, instead of insisting all

BIA police officers receive training from the lone Indian

Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico;

Encourage cooperation between state and tribal law

enforcement;

Increase and clarify tribal sentencing authority under the

Indian Civil Rights Act; and

Enable BIA and tribal police access to Federal criminal

information databases.

When enacted, the Tribal Law and Order Act will address

these and other critical shortcomings in the criminal justice

system. That is why I respectfully request your active

support to ensure House passage of H.R. 725.

Sincerely,

Jefferson Keel,

NCAI President.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 725) to protect Indian arts and crafts through the improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

On January 19, 2010, the House passed H.R. 725 under suspension of the rules. This bill, introduced by our colleague from Arizona, Mr. Ed Pastor, would improve prosecution of unlawful misrepresentation and counterfeiting of American Indian jewelry, pottery, baskets, rugs, and other items under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990.

H.R. 725 would authorize any Federal law enforcement officer to conduct an investigation of an offense involving the sale of any good that is misrepresented as an Indian-produced good or product that occurs within the United States.

On June 23, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 725 by unanimous consent without changes to the House-passed text. However, the Senate did add the language of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 introduced by Senator Dorgan. The House counterpart is H.R. 1924, sponsored by our colleague and valued member of the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Herseth Sandlin.

In addition, the Senate included provisions from H.R. 1333, which was introduced by Mr. Grijalva. H.R. 1333 passed the House by voice vote on September 30, 2009, and would permit tribal governments to use display fireworks for ceremonial and other purposes.

Despite the Federal responsibilities to protect Indian communities, the violent crime rate on reservations is 2\1/2\ times the national average. Amnesty International estimates that more than one in three Native women will be raped in their lifetimes. The Tribal Law and Order Act addresses these critical tribal public safety and justice issues by establishing accountability measures for Federal agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting reservation crime and by providing tribes with additional tools to combat crime locally.

Among other vital improvements to existing law, the Tribal Law and Order Act would, one, require the Department of Justice to maintain data on criminal declinations and share evidence with tribal justice officials when a case is declined; number two, authorize tribes to increase sentencing authority for up to 3 years in certain situations; number three, provide tribal police with greater access to criminal history databases such as the National Crime Information Center; and, four, mandate that Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs officials provide documents and testimony in prosecutions before tribal courts.

In short, the Tribal Law and Order bill would address the profound public safety needs and provide the additional law enforcement and criminal justice resources sorely needed on Indian reservations across the country.

I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), for his hard work and dedication to this legislation. I also thank Ms. Herseth Sandlin for her efforts for championing the tribal law and order portion of the bill. Both Members are addressing long- standing problems in Indian Country, and I ask my colleagues to support its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman that has helped bring this legislation to the floor of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, one of the main movers of this legislation is the gentlelady from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin). She has been a tremendous help on our Committee on Natural Resources on all issues but especially those affecting Indian Country, and Indian Country can be very proud of the friend they have in Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I join in thanking the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman John Conyers, for his help on this legislation. In particular, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I respond to him that he is correct.

Public Law 280 has been a mixed bag for both the tribes and the States. The States that are subject to Public Law 280 possess authority and responsibility to investigate and prosecute crimes committed on reservations, but, because of subsequent court decisions that sharply limited the extent of Public Law 280's grant of civil jurisdiction to affect the States, these States have almost no ability to raise revenue on Public Law 280 lands.

And to the extent that tribal governments retained concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on these lands, such authority is currently limited to no more than 1 year for any one offense. As such, residents of reservations subject to Public Law 280 have to rely principally on sometimes underfunded State and local law enforcement authorities to prosecute reservation crimes.

The phrase in section 201 that jurisdiction ``shall be concurrent among the Federal Government, State government and, where applicable, tribal governments'' is intended to clarify that the various State governments that are currently subject to Public Law 280 will maintain such criminal authority and responsibility.

In addition, this provision intends to make clear that tribal governments subject to Public Law 280 maintain concurrent criminal authority over offenses by Indians in Indian country where the tribe currently has such authority.

Nothing in this provision will change the current law of criminal jurisdiction for State or tribal government. It simply seeks to return criminal authority and responsibility to investigate and prosecute major crimes in Indian country to the United States where certain conditions are met.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another member of our Natural Resources Committee, Representative Dale Kildee, a classmate of mine and a gentleman who co-chairs the Native American Caucus. Certainly Indian country has a true, true friend in this gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Washington's, comments about the other body. However, every now and then some blaze of wisdom or light strikes over there and they do see their way to doing something that is good. And when they do it, you have to give them credit for it. What else can you say?

H.R. 725, as amended, would mark the most significant stride forward in improving the public safety in Indian Country in a generation. Swift passage is not only critical to addressing the problem of unchecked violence in Indian Country, but also to ensuring that the United States meets its solemn trust obligations to tribes.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I thank Members on both sides of the aisle and our staffs, as well, who have worked cooperatively and in a bipartisan fashion. And I thank the Members of the other body as well for that light that they have seen--on this particular issue anyway.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, included in this legislation are a great many important anti-

crime, anti-violence provisions that will assist and support Indian tribes across the country. There is considerable bipartisan support for what this bill aims to do, and yet today it is being considered before the House using a process and procedure that elicits opposition.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: The objections that I will express today are focused squarely on the matter in which the House leaders have chosen to have this bill debated.

Violence and crime against Indians is a serious problem deserving the attention of this Congress. Such an important issue as this should not be relegated to the suspension calendar where innocuous bills are often given just cursory consideration. The process being used today to consider this legislation is normally reserved for bills such as naming post offices and congratulating sports teams on winning championships. Addressing crimes against Indians deserves to be considered in a much more serious, thorough process.

Furthermore, the manner in which this bill was passed in the Senate and being considered in this House is unfair to not only all 435 Members of the House but also to every Indian constituent that they represent. A procedure is being used to consider this bill that denies every House Member the ability to offer a suggestion to improve it, even Members whose Indian constituents may seek such improvements.

The bill before us today, H.R. 725, started out as an Indian Arts and Craft Amendments Act of 2010. It was an innocuous 10-page bill with almost no cost whose purpose was to address counterfeit arts and crafts wrongfully marketed as Indian-made product. There was almost no disagreements over the merits and policies of this bill when it first passed this body.

The Senate took H.R. 725 and attached the tribal law and order provisions. Again, these are policies that merit action by Congress on which I believe there is a great deal of agreement. Yet the process and manner by which this is being done is generating opposition. When a widely supported arts and crafts bill that is just a few pages in length and which costs nothing is changed by the Senate to run over 100 pages with authorized spending of over a billion dollars, to me, Mr. Speaker, that is simply unacceptable.

As I said, I oppose this controversial process and procedure being used on a bill of this magnitude. I opposed such procedures in the past, and I've opposed such a process as the ranking member of this committee, most notably on the omnibus lands bill that passed last year.

So I regret that I must stand here today and oppose passing this bill using this process. Indian Country deserves more attention and better treatment than to have this legislation appear on a suspension calendar which is most often used, as I mentioned before, to name post offices. A bill on an issue as important as this should not be heard because it does disrespect to the committees. And it should be given more than 40 minutes of the House's attention.

The Members of this House deserve a fair opportunity to improve legislation--not to be totally blocked from offering any suggestions including any sought by their Indian constituents. Again, when a process is used to transform a several-page, no-cost bill on Indian arts and crafts into a 100-page billion dollar bill on violence and crime, then it should not be considered in this manner. It deserves the true attention of all Members of this House.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill under this unfair process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, because I have expressed my opposition to this because of the process which has been acknowledged by several Members on my side of the aisle, the last time legislation like this was taken up was in the 101st Congress. The bill was introduced, I think, on the first day. There were hearings held in the House on that legislation, and then it went through committee markup. It was amended in committee, sent to the House floor, and it was passed on suspension, but that was after the committee had done its work.

It went to the Senate where there were hearings in the Senate. The bill was further amended in the Senate committee. It went to the Senate floor where it was amended again and then came back to the House. The House concurred and amended it one more time. It went back to the Senate, they concurred, and the bill was finally passed.

I point out that that process involved in that case both Houses. Both Houses had ideas on how to improve this legislation. But apparently this year, while a similar bill was introduced in the House, there was only a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. We had no hearing on the incidence of crime in our committee, which I think would have probably provided some insight. I only bring this up, Mr. Speaker, to say that the process in passing legislation should involve both Houses and not just one House.

But I find it rather curious in this instance where those on the other side are saying the Senate did all the work in its wonderful process. I wonder if everybody on the other side of the aisle feels that way with the other issues that are pending here where we seem to have a problem getting concurrence on major issues like the supplemental budget, for example, and a few other issues that are floating around. Maybe we should just yield all of the wisdom in this House to the Senate, as we have on this bill.

Now, I say that somewhat factitiously, obviously, Mr. Speaker, but that is the reason why I feel compelled to make a point of opposing this bill on the process. But we shall see if these other issues are taken up in a like manner by this House, and I won't hold my breath.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee, and I would like to address changes made to section 201 of the Tribal Law and Order Act that concern Public Law No. 83-280, commonly known as Public Law 280. This law was enacted on August 15, 1953, and Public Law 280 removed the Federal Government's special Indian country law enforcement jurisdiction over almost all Indian lands in the States of Alaska upon statehood, my home State of California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, and permitted these States to exercise criminal jurisdiction over those lands.

The act specifically provides that these States ``shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country . . . to the same extent that such State . . . has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State . . . and the criminal laws of such State . . . shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State.''

Section 201 of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 allows the Federal Government to reassume criminal jurisdiction on Public Law 280 lands when the affected Indian tribe requests the U.S. Attorney General to do so. If the Attorney General concurs, the United States will reassume jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the General and Major Crimes Acts, sections 1152 and 1153 of title 18, that occur on the requesting tribe's reservation. The

bill makes clear that once the United States assumes jurisdictions pursuant to this provision, criminal authority on the affected reservation will be concurrent among the Federal and State governments and, ``where applicable,'' tribal governments.

I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, to make clear that nothing in the Tribal Law and Order Act retracts jurisdiction from the State governments and nothing in the act will grant criminal jurisdiction in Indian country to an Indian tribe that does not currently have criminal jurisdiction over such land.

I would yield to the chairman for that.

I thank the chairman for that.

I concur with the interpretation of the provision expressed by him, and I would like to thank him for his clarification regarding the intent of the language in section 201 of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, although I intend to support this legislation, the process under which the bill has been brought up can only be described as stranger than fiction. While it might have been appropriate to consider under suspension an act to protect Indian arts crafts, the guts of that bill have been replaced with language that dramatically affect the criminal justice system on tribal lands.

The House Judiciary Committee on which I serve had no markup, either in subcommittee or at full committee, and although we did have a subcommittee hearing on a different bill, H.R. 1924, which I attended in full and found most interesting and helpful, we did not work our will on the legislation.

Why am I concerned about that? Because there are some very specific parts of Indian law as it incorporates State law in PL-280 States that, frankly, are not fully addressed in this bill. Among other things, it is likely we will need to address the adequacy of the training standards in the bill which are less rigorous than the Police Officer Standards and Training Commission standards in my own State. As the former chairman of that commission, I realize the seriousness of the training requirements of law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, that is not addressed in this bill.

Secondly, there is a concern expressed by law enforcement officials in my State about the adequacy of protection of information. Under current law, under the CLETS system, the California law enforcement system dealing with criminal justice information, it is not currently available to tribal authorities because of the lack of training and of a concern about liability. As this now will be made available through the national system with the Federal Government's work, the question of liability if there is misuse of that information remains, and local law enforcement in my State of California have informed me of their continuing concern on this.

That is not enough for me to oppose this bill because I think the essentials of this bill are necessary for us to help protect those in Indian lands. But, Mr. Speaker, the nature of Indian land is very different in different States. Some States have very, very large reservations and very few tribes, with very large populations in those tribes. California has, by and large, very small geographic reservations and other properties that are sovereign territory of the Indians involved. We have relatively small bands, but large numbers of them. So we have a different set of circumstances with which we have to deal. I had hoped that we would be able to work legislation that would acknowledge that difference, but unfortunately that did not happen here.

I will support this bill, but it is unfortunate that true concerns expressed by law enforcement in PL-280 States and other areas of the country were not taken into consideration here, and I hope we will have a chance in the future to amend this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 725, the Senate amendments to the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendment Act. This bill was originally passed in this body by a voice vote. In the Senate, however, the bill was amended to include the tribal law and order bill, and that's what I want to focus my remarks on today.

This bill passed the United States Senate by unanimous consent after Senator Coburn and the Senate Republican Senate Study Committee negotiated certain spending reductions and addressed spending concerns.

There's no question, I think both sides of the aisle agree, that the Federal Government has a new unique obligation to ensure that these Americans, the first Americans, are granted the same public safety rights and protections that other American citizens enjoy. Law enforcement in Indian Country, however, has been woefully underfunded and mismanaged over decades, resulting in a drastic situation for many of our fellow Americans.

I want to particularly thank my colleague Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and her staff for the remarkably bipartisan way in which she worked with my staff and myself to address some of the concerns that we had. Obviously, I want to thank my fellow chairman of the Native American Caucus, Dale Kildee, and some of my Republican coauthors and supporters of this legislation like Representatives Simpson, Calvert and Kline.

However, I agree very much with my colleague Mr. Hastings' concern that this legislation should have been brought to this body under a rule, because it is indeed a major spending piece of legislation and there are many important and dramatic changes in Federal law, and we should have treated it under normal process. That's a legitimate Republican concern. I think it ought to be a concern of everybody in this body, and quite frankly, we will lose votes today on this legislation because of the manner in which it was brought to the floor, and that is unfortunate. Frankly, if we don't make it today, it will be because the Democratic leadership chose to bring it to the floor this way. Had it been brought under normal order, it would pass easily.

However, having said that, I think this is a case in which substance must trump process for the good of our fellow Americans in Indian Country. The problems as I mentioned earlier are severe. On Indian reservations crime is 2\1/2\ times the national average. One in three Native women will be raped over the course of a lifetime. We have only

3,000 tribal officers to cover 56 million acres of Indian Country, and even if criminals are apprehended, many tribal law enforcement officials have not had the opportunity to receive the training and resources they need to adequately carry out their duties and secure convictions. Further, if the perpetrator is a non-Indian, it becomes a maze of Federal, State, and tribal law to determine whose responsibility it is to prosecute crimes.

We have had a very difficult legislative process to work through some of these problems. This bill isn't a cure-all but it's an important start in moving in the right direction.

I thank the gentleman.

This bill not only reauthorizes existing programs at existing or last appropriated levels--in other words, there's no new spending in this bill--it provides enhanced sentencing authority so the tribes may impose longer sentences on Native Americans, not on nontribal citizens or non-Native Americans. It enhances evidence sharing and Federal accountability, and increases officers on the ground in Indian Country. It streamlines the process for the BIA and IHS employees to testify in sexual assault cases, and reauthorizes funding to support tribal courts.

In closing, all Americans have the right to public safety and security, but it's preeminently a Federal responsibility to protect those rights in Indian Country. A vote against this bill, in my opinion, is a vote to continue the status quo of rampant violence and drug abuse in Indian Country, which we have an opportunity to make significant progress on. This legislation will only pass as it did in the Senate if it has significant bipartisan support, and I hope that support is available here today. I urge my colleagues on both sides to pass this important piece of legislation.