Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer, Snowe, and Boxer in introducing legislation to prohibit the selling and counterfeiting of tickets to the Presidential inaugural ceremony.

The inauguration of the President of the United States is one of the most important rituals of our democracy, and the chance to witness this solemn event should not be bought and sold similar to tickets to a sporting event.

This is a dignified and critical moment of transition in Government, a moment of which Americans have always been justifiably proud. It is, in fact, the major symbol of the real strength of our democracy--the peaceful transition from one elected President to the next.

Tickets to the official Presidential inaugural ceremony are supposed to be free for the people: for the volunteers who gave up their weekends, walking miles door to door to encourage voters to turn out at the polls on election day, for members of the African-American community to see one of their own take the oath of office for the highest office in the land, for schoolchildren to witness history, and for the American public to watch this affirmation of our Constitution, this peaceful transition from one administration to another.

This is going to be the major civic event of our time. Excitement is at an all time high, and every one of us has received more phone calls for tickets than we could possibly ever meet. People are desperate to become part of it, to touch it, to be around, to feel it, to listen to it, and they are coming from all over the country. We could have more than 1.5 million people descend on the Nation's Capital for this inauguration.

Before I introduced a similar bill at the end of the last Congress, tickets to the Presidential inaugural were being offered for sale on the Internet for $5,000 apiece, with some going as high as $40,000 each. To their credit, some Internet websites voluntarily agreed to refuse to sell these tickets online. I want to thank and commend Craigslist, eBay, and StubHub for leading the way on this issue.

However, it is clear that relying on voluntary industry compliance to prevent the sale of these tickets is simply not enough. Today, some Internet sites are still offering these tickets for sale at prices up to $750 per ticket.

Let me be clear--these are free tickets that have not yet been distributed by congressional and Presidential transition offices. These unscrupulous websites who continue to offer these tickets for sale do not have any tickets to offer for sale.

These tickets are supposed to be free for the people. Once more, these tickets are not yet even available. They will not be distributed to congressional offices until the end of the week before the inauguration. Even then the offices will require in-person pickup, with secure identification. But they will be free and they should stay that way.

We are asking people to pick up their tickets the day before the inauguration in my office. Everyone will submit their name, their address, and their driver's license. They will have to verify they are the actual person who has tickets waiting for them. I believe this kind of procedure deters unscrupulous people from selling these tickets on the Internet. No websites or other ticket outlets have inaugural swearing-in tickets to sell, despite what some of them claim.

Congress has the responsibility of overseeing this historic event. This bill will ensure that these tickets are not sold to the highest bidder, and that the inauguration has all the respect and dignity it deserves.

This legislation is aimed at stopping those who seek to profit by selling these tickets. It would also target those who seek to dupe the public with fraudulent or counterfeit tickets or those who merely promise but can't deliver on tickets that they do not actually have.

Those who violate the law under this legislation would face a class A misdemeanor with a substantial fine, imprisonment of up to 1 year, or both.

The bill also exempts official Presidential Inaugural Committees, and there is good reason for this. Presidential Inaugural Committees are used to organize and fund the public inaugural ceremonies. Donations made in return for inaugural tickets have long been used by both political parts to fund the Presidential inaugural festivities.

Unlike unscrupulous websites and ticket scalpers, there is no ``profit'' made by Presidential Inaugural Committees in giving these tickets to people in return for inaugural donations. This exemption will allow both parties to raise the needed funds to put on Presidential inaugurals in the future.

It is my hope that Congress will pass this legislation quickly, before President-elect Obama's inauguration on January 20th. I think it is very important to establish once and for all that tickets to the inauguration of the next President of the United States are not issues of commerce, but rather free tickets to be given to the people.

So I hope that this week this legislation can pass unanimously on a hotline by this body.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will limit foreclosures and stabilize home values through Federal loan guarantees and standardized procedures for mortgage workout agreements.

The Systematic Foreclosure Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act would implement the foreclosure prevention plan developed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, Chairman Sheila Bair.

There are three key components of this legislation.

Servicers would be incentivized to modify mortgages, receiving $1,000 to help cover the costs of each loan modification; the Federal Government would share up to 50 percent of any loss should the homeowner default after receiving a modification; and participating servicers would be required to systematically review and modify all suitable loans in their portfolios, applying a standard calculation to help expedite loan modifications as cost-effectively as possible.

The FDIC estimates that roughly 2.2 million home loans, worth $444 billion, could be modified under this plan, with 1.5 million foreclosures avoided.

This legislation is projected to cost at least $25 billion; however, no additional spending is necessary.

This effort would be funded solely through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, to ensure that one of the core objectives of the bill, assistance to homeowners, is achieved.

The foreclosure crisis and declining housing market remain at the epicenter of the economic challenges we face. And, although the Federal Government has taken unprecedented steps to address this problem, they have not been sufficient.

Foreclosures are in the best interest of no one.

Neighborhoods are decimated when homes are repossessed or left vacant, property values decline, local economies suffer, and crime often increases in blighted areas. Lenders must sustain the costs of foreclosure and are left with the burden of reselling properties in a distressed market.

Homeowners are forced to give up on the American dream, and in some cases, tenants are forced out of homes they have been renting.

To date, no TARP funds have been allocated by Treasury to directly address the foreclosure crisis.

This must change, and it must change now.

According to the FDIC, the pace of loan modifications continues to be very slow, with only 4 percent of troubled mortgages being modified to prevent foreclosures each month.

A systematic approach is needed to expedite this process. The FDIC has

implemented such a program successfully at Indy Mac Federal Bank, to reduce mortgage payments as low as 31 percent of monthly income.

Loan modifications are based on interest rate reductions, extended loan terms, and principal forbearance.

Unfortunately, banks that have received TARP funds have not been compelled to implement foreclosure reduction measures, and adequate incentive structures are not in place.

This legislation provides prudent and cost-effective steps to improve assistance for struggling homeowners while also stabilizing the housing market.

Foreclosures have had a devastating impact on our national economy, and the damage in my state has been particularly severe.

California accounts for 1/3 of all foreclosure activity in the United States.

Roughly 800,000 foreclosures will be filed in my state in 2008--a 70 percent increase over 2007, when 481,392 foreclosures were filed in California.

The foreclosure rate in California is the fourth highest in the Nation, with one foreclosure filing for every 218 households.

In fact, 6 of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure rate in the Nation are in California.

This includes: Merced--one out of every 76 homes in foreclosure; Modesto--one out of every 93 homes in foreclosure; Stockton--one out of every 94 homes in foreclosure; Riverside and San Bernardino--one out of every 107 homes in foreclosure; Bakersfield--one out of every 129 homes in foreclosure; and Vallejo and Fairfield--one out of every 133 homes in foreclosure.

And, the situation is only getting worse.

Property values have plummeted across California, making it difficult for many residents with adjustable rate mortgages to refinance into more stable, fixed rate products.

One California community is in a special category of need: the city of Stockton, which has been referred to as ``America's foreclosure capital.''

The foreclosure crisis has devastated this city of more than 260,000 residents.

Home foreclosures impact neighbors and reduce property values.

But, the spillover effect in Stockton has been overwhelming.

Jobs: The downturn in the construction industry has contributed to an unemployment rate of 11.9 percent in San Joaquin County, well above the national average.

Schools: Foreclosures have displaced many students who were forced to change schools or leave the area when their families lost their homes.

The student population of Stockton Unified School District, the biggest in San Joaquin County, was down about 200 students last year.

Student displacement has a direct impact on school budgets, which are linked to student attendance.

Most unfortunately, the emotional impact on children being forced to switch schools in the middle of the year can be tremendous.

Public Services: High foreclosure rates have taken a toll on the city of Stockton's budget.

Stockton now faces a nearly $25 million budget deficit.

City officials have been forced to consider voluntary buyouts for municipal employees and mandatory 10-day furloughs to help close the gap.

Because property values have fallen--due to foreclosures and increased inventory--Stockton also is facing lower tax revenues, which are depended upon to fill the city's $186 million general fund.

This could have a dramatic effect on the city's emergency services; about 75 percent of Stockton's general fund pays for police and fire services.

It is essential that we not forget communities such as Stockton. We cannot sit idly by and watch them fall through the cracks.

This legislation is a much-needed step forward to provide relief to Main Street.

Millions of Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure, and millions more are at risk of losing their homes in the coming months.

Part of this problem was driven by abusive and predatory lending practices.

Part of the problem can be attributed to lax underwriting standards and regulators who were asleep at the wheel.

Part of this problem was due to individuals who made bad choices.

But, this is a problem that now impacts--either directly or indirectly--all hard-working American families.

These are significant challenges we face, and innovative solutions are required.

This bill will serve as a companion to legislation introduced in the House by my colleague from California, Representative Maxine Waters.

I look forward to working with her, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to pass this important legislation as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Joseph Gabra and his wife, Sharon Kamel, Egyptian nationals currently living with their children in Camarillo, California.

Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel entered the United States legally on November 1, 1998, on tourist visas. They immediately filed for political asylum based on religious persecution.

The couple fled Egypt because they had been targeted for their active involvement in the Coptic Christian Church in Egypt. Mr. Gabra was employed from 1990-1998 by the Coptic Catholic Diocese Church in El- Fayoum as an accountant and ``project coordinator'' in the Office of Human and Social Elevation. He was responsible for building community facilities such as religious schools, among other things.

His wife, Sharon Kamel, was employed as the Director for Training in the Human Resources Department of the Coptic Church.

Both Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel had paid full-time positions with the Coptic Church.

Unfortunately, they and their families suffered abuse because of their commitment to their church. Mr. Gabra was repeatedly jailed by Egyptian authorities because of his work for the church. In addition, Ms. Kamel's cousin was murdered and her brother's business was fire- bombed.

When Ms. Kamel became pregnant with their first child, the family was warned by a member of the Muslim brotherhood that if they did not raise their child as a Muslim, the child would be kidnapped and taken from them.

Frightened by these threats, the young family sought refuge in the United States. Unfortunately, when

they sought asylum here, Mr. Gabra, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating his fear of persecution to the immigration judge.

The judge denied their petition, telling the family that he did not see why they could not just move to another city in Egypt to avoid the abuse they were suffering. Since the time that they were denied asylum, Ms. Kamel's brother, who lived in the same town and suffered similar abuse, was granted asylum.

I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure immense and unfair hardship.

First, in the ten years that Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have lived here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels. They left behind employment in Egypt and came to the United States on a lawful visa. Once here, they immediately notified authorities of their intent to seek asylum here. They have played by the rules and followed our laws.

In addition, during those ten years, the couple has had four U.S. citizen children who do not speak Arabic and are unfamiliar with Egyptian culture. If the family is deported, the children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life.

Jessica, age 10, is the Gabras' oldest child, and in the Gifted and Talented Education program in Ventura County. Rebecca, age 9, and Rafael, age 8, are old enough to understand that they would be leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. Veronica, the Gabra's youngest child, is just 3 years old.

More troubling is the very real possibility that if sent to Egypt, these four American children would suffer discrimination and persecution because of their religion, just as the rest of their family reports.

Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have made a positive life for themselves and their family in the United States. Both have earned college degrees in Egypt and once in the United States, Mr. Gabra passed the Certified Public Accountant Examination on August 4, 2003. Since arriving here, Mr. Gabra has consistently worked to support his family.

The positive impact they have made on their community is highlighted by the fact that I received a letter of support on their behalf signed by 160 members of their church and community. From everything I have learned about the family, we can expect that they will continue to contribute to their community in productive ways.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

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

MR. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide relief to local governments that have suffered losses due to highly-rated investments with failed financial institutions, such as Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.

The TARP Assistance for Local Governments Act would require the Treasury Secretary to provide $10 billion in TARP funds to local governments that suffered losses due to investments in failed financial institutions; and limit relief to local governments with investments in failed financial institutions that were highly rated, as determined by the Treasury Secretary.

This legislation is necessary because local governments are in jeopardy of losing up to $10 billion as a result of these investments.

In California 28 cities and counties could lose nearly $300 million.

These investments include basic operational funds which cities and counties rely upon to function.

For many cities and counties that are already struggling with budget shortfalls, the consequences of these losses are severe.

Public safety, education, public health, infrastructure, and transit will be compromised.

Communities large and small are significantly impacted.

These are examples from my State that demonstrate the gravity of this situation.

This list was included in a December 22 letter to Secretary Paulson, and to date, I have not received a response. San Mateo County sustained a loss of $30 million, which will require the county to abandon plans for a new and urgently needed county jail. The current jail will continue to operate in overcrowded conditions, far beyond the rating of the facility. The result will be unsafe working conditions for the corrections personnel and the likelihood that convicted criminals will be released into the community early and in large numbers.

The City of Shafter, a small community of 15,000 in the San Joaquin Valley, sustained a loss of $300,000, or nearly 4 percent of its annual budget. The City will be forced to make across-the-board cuts in all services, including police and fire.

Monterey County is facing a $30 million loss. Amid numerous other cuts, hardest hit will be programs targeting gang activities, including a special task force and the construction of new adult and juvenile corrections facilities to manage these criminals.

The San Mateo County Transportation Authority sustained a loss of more than $25 million, which will mean delays and higher costs for major projects that will reduce emissions and traffic, specifically the electrification of the Caltrain Peninsula Commuter Rail Service. Similarly, cuts in highway and roads projects will put more people on the local roads for longer times at a major cost in compromised air quality.

The City of Culver City has lost $1 million. This will result in a substantial reduction in planned street repairs and higher liability exposure from accidents, greater environmental degradation from storm water drain off, and worsened traffic congestion in a region of the U.S. ranked as one of the worst for traffic.

The Hillsborough City School District lost over $924,000. Projects to create more classrooms for increased enrollment will not take place, increasing class sizes. Combined with other budget cuts from the State, all the District's programs are threatened.

The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, which provides sanitary sewer and storm water services to the City of Vallejo, population 119,600, and nearby areas of Solano County, sustained losses of $4.5 million in Lehman Brothers investments and $1.46 million in Washington Mutual investments. The result is that aging infrastructure essential to the health of this community will not be replaced. The City of Vallejo recently declared Chapter 9 Municipal bankruptcy.

Sacramento County sustained an increase in costs of $8 million related to an interest rate swap agreement with Lehman. This increase means fewer funds for sheriff's patrol and investigations and probation supervision, resulting in an increased risk to the safety of the community and reductions in social safety net services, at a time of increased community need.

The City of Folsom lost $700,000, which has caused the City to indefinitely postpone staffing and equipping a new fire station.

The San Mateo County Community College District sustained a loss of $25 million in voter-approved bond funds. As a result, the District will be forced to abandon a program to build more classrooms, and, therefore, turn away thousands of potential students, many of them unemployed adults seeking job training.

The economic rescue legislation included a provision to require the Secretary of the Treasury to consider the impact of these losses on local governments when disbursing TARP funds.

But, to date, the Secretary has not exercised his authority to assist local governments with such funds.

The TARP Assistance for Local Governments Act of 2009 will change this, and ensure that communities remain solvent and taxpayers are protected.

Given the urgency of this situation, we can no longer afford to wait.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 15 years.

The story of Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were previously political activists who were subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990s in the Ivory Coast.

After a demonstration in which both were promoting peace, they were jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and in 1997 learned that she had contracted HIV.

Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr. Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto was able to give birth to two healthy children, Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6.

Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay taxes and own their own home in Hercules, CA. They are active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.

Mr. Tape works full-time as a security guard with Universal Protective Services. He also manages a small business, Melody's Carpet Cleaning & Upholstery. He employs four other individuals, all U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr. Tape was diagnosed with urologic cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life-long surveillance to monitor for reoccurrence of the disease.

In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto became a certified Nursing Assistant in 2001 and currently works at Creekside Health Care in San Pablo, CA. She hopes to finish her schooling so that she can become a Registered Nurse. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing life threatening illnesses.

Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been afraid to return to the Ivory Coast due to his prior association with President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be targeted if they return to the Ivory Coast.

One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their two children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the family returns to the Ivory Coast, these two young children will be forced to enter the army.

We are the only hope for this family who seeks to remain in the United States. To send them back to the Ivory Coast, where they will likely face persecution and will not be able to obtain adequate medical treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to them. They are contributing members of their community and have embraced the American dream with their strong work ethic and family values. I have received approximately 50 letters from the church community in support of this family. Representative George Miller has also requested that we assist this family.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children.

I first introduced this bill in June, 2000. Today, the Fulops continue to face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system.

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

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

That same year their 6-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but requires medical supervision to ensure her good health.

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

Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days.

Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents.

Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect.

Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

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

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

The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry contractor and the Owner and President of his own construction company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for almost 14 years.

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

Mr. President, this is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were changed in the middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief ceased to exist.

The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on the children, all of whom were born here and who range from five years old to 21 years of age. Their two eldest children are attending college, one studying structural engineering and the other studying to become a dental hygienist.

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

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

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

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 23, and Cindy, age 19, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 16, Daniel, age 13, and Saray, age 11, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two eldest children face deportation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nayely, the oldest, recently graduated from Fresno Pacific University with a degree in Business Administration and was recently hired as a substitute teacher in Tulare County. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She attended Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and worked part-time in the admissions office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States over 25 years ago as tourists and established residency in San Bruno, California. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States.

After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 17 years old, Bruce, 13 years old, and Eva, 11 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety.

The immigration judge who presided over the Liangs' case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them.

I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 9 more years.

The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are home owners, and

are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream.

Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an immigration judge.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, however, did not act on their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time the immigration laws had significantly changed.

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

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

According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native country of Laos during the Vietnam War.

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

The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn native country has been profound and continues to haunt him. His psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens.

Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jose Buendia Balderas, his wife, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and their daughter, Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, Mexican nationals who have been living and working in the Fresno area of California for over 20 years.

Jose Buendia is a remarkable individual who epitomizes the American dream. His father worked as an agricultural laborer in the Bracero program over 25 years ago. In 1981, Jose followed his father to the United States--where he worked in the shadows to help provide for his family in Mexico.

Since then, Jose has moved from working as a landscaper to construction, where he is now a valued employee of Bone Construction in Reedley, California. He has been employed by this cement company for the past 8 years. Although he knew nothing about construction when he began working in the field, he was disciplined and persistent in his training and is now a lead foreman.

His employer, Timothy Bone, says Mr. Buendia is a ``reliable, hardworking and conscientious'' employee. In fact, it was Mr. Bone who contacted my office to seek relief for Mr. Buendia.

Alicia Buendia, Jose Buendia's wife, has been working as a seasonal fruit packer for several years. The family has consistently paid all of their taxes. Recently, they paid off their mortgage and today, they are debt free. They have health insurance, savings and retirement accounts, participate in the company profit-sharing company, and support their family here and in Mexico. In short, they are living the American dream.

Their daughter, Ana Laura, is an outstanding student. She earned a 4.0 GPA at Reedley High School and was awarded an academic scholarship to the University of California-Berkeley. Unfortunately, because of her immigration status, she was unable to accept the scholarship and her parents now pay full out-of-state tuition for her to attend the University of California-Irvine. She is now completing her second year there.

Their son, Jose, is a U.S. citizen, and graduated high school with a 3.85 grade point average and honors, and is currently an engineering student at Reedley Junior College. For both Jose and Ana Laura, the United States is the only country they know.

What makes the story of the Buendias so tragic is that they would have been eligible to correct their illegal status but for the unscrupulous practices of their former immigration attorney.

Because Mr. Buendia has been in this country for so long, he qualified for legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, his legalization application was never acted upon because his attorney, Jose Velez, was convicted of fraudulently submitting legalization and Special Agricultural Worker applications.

This criminal conduct tainted all of Mr. Velez's clients. Although Mr. Buendia's application was found not to contain any fraudulent documentation, it was submitted while his lawyer was under investigation. The result was that Mr. Buendia was unable to be interviewed and obtain legal status.

To complicate matters, it took the Immigration and Naturalization Service nearly 7 years to determine that Mr. Buendia's application contained no fraudulent information. In the meantime, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reinterpreted the law and determined that he was no longer eligible for relief because he had left the United States briefly when he married his wife.

Despite these setbacks, the Buendia family has continued to seek legal status. They believed they were successful when an immigration judge granted the family relief based on the hardship their U.S. citizen son would face if his family was deported to Mexico. Unfortunately, the government appealed the judge's decision and had it overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Despite the problems with adjusting their legal status, this family has forged ahead and continued to play a meaningful role in their community.

They have worked hard. They have invested in their neighborhood. They are active in the PTA and their local church.

I believe the Buendia family should be allowed to continue to live in this country that has become their own. If this legislation is approved, the Buendias will be able to continue to contribute significantly to the United States. It is my hope that Congress passes this private legislation.

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

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 24-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, California. The House passed a private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada last year, but unfortunately we were unable to move the bill in the Senate before the end of the 110th Congress.

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

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

The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependants. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States.

In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage.

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

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

First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, he earned a number of awards including being named an ``Outstanding English Student'' his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award.

His teacher and coach, Mr. John describes him as being ``responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable.'' His role as the vice president of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers.

As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the ``Most Inspirational Player of the Year'' in junior varsity baseball and football, as well as, varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has ``seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous.''

Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for 4 years as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of ``integrity'' who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a ``team player.''

His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was 2 hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he will be formally hired to continue coaching the team.

Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends.

And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. All of his family lives in California. Sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows.

His sister contends that her younger brother would be ``lost'' if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read the language.

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

the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.

With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live in the San Bruno area of California.

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

The Plascencia's have worked for years to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in anyway. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation.

Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken.

For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed from the United States.

First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family, and devotion to community.

Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the over 14 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now overseas the market's entire packing operation and several employees.

The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest,'' and ``reliable.''

Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree and improved her skills to become a medical assistant.

Those who have written to me in support of Mrs. Plascencia, of which there are several, have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.''

In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.''

Mrs. Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.''

Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want to send their children to college and give them an even better life.

This legislation is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future.

It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community.

Christina, 17, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student. Erika, 14, and Alfredo, Jr., 12, have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, the principal of Erika's school has recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.''

The Plascencia's also have two young children: 6-year-old Daisy and 2-year-old Juan-Pablo.

Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States and who through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to dramatically alter their lives.

It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika, and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them.

Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life.

The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make.

Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit.

I have sponsored this legislation, and asked my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill on behalf of the Plascencia family.

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

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA.

Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by her parents 16 years ago.

Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is the only home they know.

Eight years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car collided with a truck on an isolated rural road.

The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are U.S. citizens with two children of their own and took the Marquez children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez children.

Sadly, the Marquez family received poor legal representation. At the time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship that would result from deportation under such extraordinary circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect.

Today, their younger brother Omar is a U.S. Citizen, due to his adjustment as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status.

I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears on his way to being disbarred.

I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family for much longer.

Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia finished school. She supports herself, her 17-year-old sister, Maribel, and her younger brother Omar. Again, both Maribel and Omar are now U.S. Citizens.

Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there now?

It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching separation.

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

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

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 28-year-old widow currently living in San Francisco.

Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of

Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her.

Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning.

The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats' nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband.

Four days before Mr. Coats' death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported.

Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to . . . I've been here four years . . . It would be like starting a new life.''

Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, California. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats' seven brothers and sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.''

The San Francisco and Bay Area community has rallied strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats' right to remain in the country.

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years.

I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.''

I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death.

For these reasons, I reintroduce this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno and Micaela Lopez Martinez and their daughter, Adilene Martinez--Mexican nationals now living in San Francisco, California.

This family embodies the true American success story and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Mr. Martinez came to the United States eighteen years ago from Mexico. He started working as a bus boy in restaurants in San Francisco. In 1990, he began working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco.

According to the people who worked with him, he ``never made mistakes, never lost his temper, and never seemed to sweat.''

Over the years, Jose Martinez has worked his way through the ranks. Today, he is the sous chef at Palio, where he is respected by everyone in the restaurant, from dishwashers to cooks, busboys to waiters, bartenders to managers.

Mr. Martinez has unique skills: he is an excellent chef; he is bilingual; he is a leader in the workplace. He is described as ``an exemplary employee'' who is not only ``good at his job, but is also a great boss to his subordinates.''

He and his wife, Micaela, have made a home in San Francisco. Micaela has been working as a housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, 20, is undocumented. Adilene recently graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and is attending San Francisco City College.

One of the most compelling reasons for allowing the family to remain in the United States is that they are eligible for a green card. Unfortunately, there is such a back log for green cards right now that even though he has a work permit, owns a home in San Francisco, works two jobs, and has been in the United States for twenty years with a clean record, he and his family will be deported.

Mr. Martinez and his family have applied unsuccessfully for legal status several ways:

In May 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez filed for political asylum. Their case was denied and a subsequent application for a Cancellation of Removal was also denied because the immigration court judge could not find ``requisite hardship'' required for this relief.

Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that Mr. Martinez's culinary ability was a negative factor--as it indicated that he could find a job in Mexico.

In 2001, his sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Mr. Martinez to get a green card. Unfortunately, because of the current green card backlog, Mr. Martinez has several years to wait before he is eligible for a green card.

Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, has petitioned for legal status for Mr. Martinez based on Mr. Martinez's unique skills as a chef. Although Mr. Martinez's work petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, there is a backlog on these visas, and Mr. Martinez is on a waiting list for a green card through this channel, as well.

Mr. and Mrs. Martinez have no other administrative options available to them at this point and if deported, they will face a 5 to 10 year ban from returning to the United States. In addition, this bill remains the only means for Adilene to gain legal status.

The Martinez family has become an important and valued part of their community. They are active members of their church, their children's school, and Comite de Padres Unido, a grassroots immigrant organization in California.

They volunteer extensively--advocating for safe new parks in the community for the children, volunteering at their children's school, and working on a voter registration campaign, even though they are unable to vote themselves.

In fact, I have received 46 letters of support from teachers, church members, and members of their community who attest to their honesty, responsibility, and long-standing commitment to their community. Their supporters include San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom; former Mayor Willie Brown; President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Aaron Peskin; and the Director of Immigration Policy at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Mark Silverman.

This family has truly embraced the American dream. I believe their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Martinez family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, his wife, Asmik Karapetian and their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family are Armenian nationals who have been living and working in Fresno, California, for over a decade.

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

Let me first start with how the Mkoian family arrived in the United States. While in Armenia, Mr. Mkoian worked as a police sergeant in a division dealing with vehicle licensing. As a result of his position, he was offered a bribe to register 20 stolen vehicles.

He refused the bribe and reported the incident to the police chief. He later learned that his co-worker had registered the vehicles at the request of the chief.

After he reported the offense, Mr. Mkoian's supervisor informed him that the department was to undergo an inspection. Mr. Mkoian was instructed to take a vacation during this time period. Mr. Mkoian believed that the inspection was a result of the complaint that he had filed with the higher authorities.

During the inspection, however, Mr. Mkoian worked at a store that he owned rather than taking a vacation. During that time, individuals kept entering his store and attempted to damage it and break merchandise. When he threatened to call the police, he received threatening phone calls telling him to ``shut up'' or else he would ``regret it.'' Mr. Mkoian believed that these threats were related to the illegal vehicle registrations occurring in his department because he had nothing else to be silent about.

Later that same month, three men grabbed his wife and attempted to kidnap his child, Arthur, on the street. Mrs. Mkoian was told that her husband should ``shut up.'' No one suffered any injuries from the incident. In October 1991, a bottle of gasoline was thrown into the Mkoian's residence and their house was burned down. The final incident occurred on April 1, 1992, when four or five men assaulted Mr. Mkoian in his store. He was beaten and hospitalized for 22 days.

Following that experience, Mr. Mkoian left Armenia for Russia, and then came to the United States on a visitor's visa in search of a better life. Two years later he brought his wife Asmik and his then 3- year-old son Arthur to the United States, also on visitor's visas. The family applied for political asylum, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied their request in January 2008. Thus, the family has no further legal recourse by which to remain in the country other than this bill.

Since arriving in the United States, the family has thrived. Arthur is now 18 years old and the family has expanded to include Arsen, who is a U.S. citizen.

Both Arthur and Arsen are very special children. In high school, Arthur maintained a 4.0 grade point average and was a valedictorian for the class of 2008. I first introduced this bill on his graduation day. Today, Arthur is a freshman at the University of California, Davis.

Arsen is following in his older brother's footsteps. At age 12, he stands out among his peers and is on the honor roll at Tenaya Middle School in Fresno.

In addition to raising two outstanding children, Mr. and Mrs. Mkoian have maintained steady jobs and have devoted time and energy into the community and their church. Mr. Mkoian is working at HB Medical Transportation, as a driver in Fresno.

His wife, Asmik, has two jobs as a medical receptionist with Dr. Kumar in Fresno and as a sales clerk at Gottschalks Department Store. In addition, she has taken classes at Fresno Community College and has completed their Medical Assistant Program.

The family are active members of the St. Paul Armenian Church, and Mr. Mkoian is a member of the PTA of the St. Paul Armenian Saturday School.

There has been an outpouring of support for this family from their church, the schools their children attend, and the community at large.

To date, we have received over 200 letters of support for the family in addition to numerous telephone calls. I also note that I have letters from both Congressman George Radanovich and Jim Costa, requesting that I offer this bill for the Mkoian family.

I truly believe that this case warrants our compassion and our extraordinary consideration.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez. The Rojas family members are Mexican nationals living in the San Jose area of California.

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

Mr. Rojas and his wife Ms. Gonzalez originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered on visitors' visas.

The family has since expanded to include a son, Alexis Rojas, now age 16, and a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 14.

Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement, a strong work ethic and volunteerism. They have been paying taxes since their arrival in 1990. The family has been described by their friends and colleagues as a ``model American family.'' I would like to tell you some more about each member of the Rojas family.

Mr. Rojas is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the past 14 years. Currently, Mr. Rojas works on commercial landscaping projects. He is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers.

In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time and talents to provide modern green landscaping and a recreational jungle gym to Sherman Oaks Community Charter School, where his two youngest children attend school.

Ms. Gonzalez, in addition to raising her three children, has been very active in the local community. She has worked to help other immigrants assimilate to American life by working as a translator and a tutor for immigrant children at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School and the Y.M.C.A. Kids after-school program.

She has also coached soccer teams, and has recently directed a Thanksgiving food drive. Ms. Gonzalez also devotes many hours of her time to the organization People Acting in Community Together, PACT, where she works to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their three children. Two of the children, Alexis and Tania, are U.S. citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.

Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, is now 20 and is currently working at Jamba Juice. He graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007 and is currently taking classes at San Jose City College.

Alexis and Tania are students at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School. They are described by their teachers as ``fantastic, wonderful, and gifted'' students. In fact, the principal at Sherman Oaks has described all three of the children as ``honest, hard-working academic honor students'' and have commended all of them for their on-campus leadership.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream, and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. I have received 30 letters from the community in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act.

This bill would help American consumers by requiring banks to notify credit card holders of the true cost if

they choose to make the minimum payment each month.

Americans today own more credit cards than ever before. The average American has approximately four credit cards. In 2007, 1 in 7 Americans held more than 10 cards.

Unsurprisingly, this increase in credit card ownership has resulted in a dramatic increase in credit card debt.

Over the past 2 decades, Americans' combined credit card debt has nearly tripled--from $238 billion in 1989 to a staggering $971 billion in 2008.

Today, the average American household has approximately $10,678 in credit card debt, up 29 percent from 2000.

Among credit card users, 55 percent carry a balance on their credit card, a 2 percent increase from last year.

Approximately 1 in 6 families with credit cards pays only the minimum due every month.

Young Americans are using credit cards to finance everything from daily expenses to college tuition. Forty-one percent of college students have a credit card, and, of those, only 65 percent pay their bills in full every month.

Over the past year, as economic conditions have worsened, it has become even harder for families to pay off their debt. Whether it is a mortgage, or tuition, or medical expenses, people are finding it harder than ever to meet all of their expenses.

In July of this year, 28 percent of people surveyed reported that their ability to pay off their credit card balances has become more strained.

This increasing debt is contributing to more and more Americans filing for bankruptcy.

Ever since the Bankruptcy Reform Act was enacted in 2005, non- business bankruptcies have been increasing at a rapid pace. The numbers this year already show a staggering hike. Between September 2007 and September 2008, Americans filed over one million non-business bankruptcies, up 30 percent from the previous year.

Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who are turning to credit cards to finance their expenses. Today's filers have even more credit card debt than usual--sometimes because they have been struggling to pay a mortgage and have started using credit cards for daily expenses.

One family, the Forsyths, found themselves in financial trouble after moving to a new State for a better job opportunity. Unable to sell their old house, they rented. But when the renter stopped making payments, the family became overwhelmed with two mortgage payments. Credit cards helped at first--providing payment for food, utilities, and clothes--but the family quickly accumulated $20,000 in debt and was left with no alternative other than bankruptcy.

The benefits offered by credit cards are attractive, but these cards also pose enormous financial risk. Dianne McLeod discovered this in a painful way after back-to-back medical emergencies depleted her finances. Although credit cards initially enabled her to maintain her lifestyle, before long these cards and two mortgages meant that she later found that she was spending more than 40 percent of her monthly income on interest payments, in addition to thousands of dollars annually in fees.

Today, credit cardholders receive no information on the impact of carrying a balance with compounding interest. As a result, too often individuals make only the minimum payment. After a few years, they find that the interest on the debt is almost twice the amount of their original purchases--and they do not know what to do about it.

I first introduced the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act during the debate on the 2005 bankruptcy bill. As I said then, I believe the bill failed to balance responsibility and fairness. Consumers should not be so harshly penalized when they do not have the basic tools and information they need to make informed choices.

The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would help prevent this problem by requiring credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly credit card statement:

A general notice that would read ``Making only the minimum payment will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay your balance.''

An individualized notice to credit card holders that specifies clearly on their bill how much time it will take to repay their debt and the total amount they will pay if they only make the minimum payments.

For consumers with variable rate cards, the bill would also require companies to provide a toll-free number where cardholders can access credit-counseling services.

The disclosure requirements in the bill would only apply if the consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement.

Last year, a Gallup--Experian poll found that about 11 percent of credit cardholders consistently make only the minimum payment on their cards each month.

Consider what this could mean for the average household.

For example, the U.S. average credit card debt is $10,678. The average fixed credit card interest rate is approximately 12 percent. If the 2 percent minimum payment is all that is paid on its debt each month, it would take more than 31 years to pay off the bill and the total cost would be $21,052.66--and that's just the minimum assuming that the family didn't ever charge another dime on that bill.

In other words, the family would need to pay $10,374.66 in interest just to repay $10,678 in original debt.

For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 12 percent interest rate will take over 36 years and more than $28,261 to pay off if only the minimum payments are made.

Twelve percent is relatively low, average interest rate. Interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon on credit cards, and penalty interest rates can reach as high as 32 percent.

A family that has the average debt with a 20 percent interest rate and makes the minimum payments will need a lifetime--over 85 years--and $62,158 to pay off the initial $10,678 bill. That's $51,480 just in interest--an amount that approaches 5 times the original debt.

Credit cards are an important part of everyday life, and they help the economy operate more smoothly by giving consumers and merchants a reliable, convenient way to exchange funds. But the bottom line is that for many consumers, the two percent minimum payment is a financial trap.

The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of information.

Last month, the Federal Reserve Board approved new rules that will improve disclosures, but the rules do not go far enough. Under the rules, starting July 1, 2010, credit card companies will have to warn consumers about the effect of making minimum payments on the length of time it will take to pay off their balances. But the warnings may be only examples and will not show the effect on the amount that consumers pay over time.

Before approving the final rules, the Federal Reserve Board interviewed consumers who typically carried credit card balances. Those consumers found disclosures most helpful when they provided specific information and included warnings about the amount that would have to be paid over time.

The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would provide the straightforward disclosure that consumers find most helpful and most effective.

This disclosure will ensure that consumers know exactly what it means for them to carry a balance and make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment.

In addition, the burden on banks will be minimal. Calculations like these are purely formulaic. Credit card companies already complete similar calculations to determine credit risk and when they tell consumers what their required minimum payment is each month.

The harsh effects of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are becoming apparent. During the debate over that bill, I had hoped that Congress would succeed in balancing the need to incentivize consumers to act responsibly with the promise of a fresh start for those who fell impossibly behind. I do not believe that that balance was reached.

I continue to believe that consumers need a meaningful disclosure informing them of the effects of making minimum payments.

Today, as Americans face increasing struggles with debt and expenses, the bill is needed more than ever. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch, Bayh, Kerry, Murray, Kyl, and Specter in introducing comprehensive anti-gang legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2009.

This bill has changed significantly since Senator Hatch and I began introducing gang legislation over 10 years ago. The current version of the bill reflects changes that have been made to comprehensively address the gang problem, including provisions emphasizing prevention and intervention programs, as well as enforcement funding.

This bill recognizes that the root causes of gang violence need to be addressed--identifying successful community programs and then investing significant resources in schools and religious and community organizations to prevent young people from joining gangs in the first place.

The bill constitutes a balanced approach to fighting the gang problem, with authorization for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used for proven gang prevention and intervention programs, as well as strong enforcement provisions.

The rise of criminal street gangs and the effect these gangs are having on our Nation are two of the fundamental issues facing us today. This country is in the midst of an epidemic of gang violence that cuts across every age and every race and plagues our cities, suburbs and rural areas. This violence often involves teens and children as both victims and perpetrators.

Almost every day, gang violence is in the news across the country, with gang-related killings of children and innocent bystanders almost too numerous to count. A person only needs to pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news to see how gang violence is affecting our communities.

A snapshot of gang violence that occurred over a 4-day period in Los Angeles in March 2008 illustrates how insidious gangs have become.

On March 2, 2008, Jamiel Shaw, a 17-year-old high school football star, was shot to death just three doors from his home in Mid-City Los Angeles as he rushed home to make curfew. Two gang members pulled up in a car, asked if Jamiel was a gang member, and then shot him when he didn't answer. Jamiel was not in a gang and was a model student and athlete who was being recruited by Stanford and Rutgers to play collegiate football. His mother, a sergeant in the U.S. Army who was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq, had to return home to Los Angeles to bury her son.

On March 4, 2008, 6-year-old Lavarea Elvy was shot in the head in the Harbor Gateway area of South Los Angeles as she sat in the family car. A gang member and a gang associate of a Hispanic street gang have been charged in this attempted murder.

On March 6, 2008, 13-year-old Anthony Escobar was killed while picking lemons in a neighbor's yard in the Echo Park area of Los Angeles. Anthony was not a gang member, and police believe he was targeted by gang members who came to his neighborhood for no other reason than to kill someone.

Stories like these are not limited to California. They are becoming commonplace across the country. Consider the following incidents of gang violence from across the country:

In February 2008, Julia Steele, an 80-year-old woman from St. Louis, Missouri, was killed when she was caught in the crossfire of gunfire between rival gang members. Julia's 80-year-old friend was also injured when their car slammed into other vehicles after the shooting.

Beginning in May 2008, police in Billings, Montana had to increase neighborhood patrols due to repeated drive-by shootings conducted by gang members.

In July 2008, a 7-year-old boy was wounded while playing kickball near his suburban Roxbury, Massachusetts home. He was shot by an adult gang member from Boston, who police believe had traveled to the suburbs for no other reason than to shoot someone.

In October 2008, Christopher Walker, a 16-year-old high school junior and member of the varsity basketball team, was shot and killed by a gang member near Henry Ford High School, his high school in Detroit, Michigan. According to media reports, Chris' death has sparked much anger in the community over growing gang violence in the area.

Across the country, in rural areas, suburbs, and cities, gang violence is literally holding neighborhoods hostage and Congress needs to do something about it. Our national gang problem is immense and growing, and it is not going away.

On January 18, 2007, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that gang crime has become ``part of a clear national trend.'' FBI statistics show that there are over 30,000 criminal street gangs operating in the United States, with more than one million gang members.

According to the FBI, gangs have an impact on at least 2,500 communities across the Nation. These criminal street gangs engage in drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, gun trafficking, and murder. They recruit children and teens, destroy neighborhoods, cripple families, and kill innocent people.

In California, the State Attorney General has estimated that there are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California counties.

From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides reported in California. In 2007, 469 of the 2,258 homicides in California were gang-related.

Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly: ``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.''

It's not just a California problem or an issue limited to big cities. In Chicago, the FBI estimates that there are over 60,000 gang members. A 2008 DOJ Report notes the rapid spread of gangs and violence to suburban areas. FBI Director Mueller recently recognized the national scope of the gang problem when he said: ``Gangs are no longer limited to Los Angeles. Like a cancer, gangs are spreading to communities across America.''

Our cities and States need our help--a long-term commitment to combat gang violence and a Federal helping hand to get our youth out of gangs and keep them from joining gangs in the first place.

Senator Hatch and I have now been introducing comprehensive Federal gang legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified and refined over the years, most recently in the bill that passed in the Senate in the 110th Congress by unanimous consent.

The bill that we introduce today is a balanced and measured approach to dealing with the gang problem. It has no death penalty provisions, no mandatory minimums, and we have eliminated juvenile justice changes that previously proved to be an impediment to the larger bill's passage.

The bill that we offer today provides a Federal helping hand to fight the gang problem. It provides a comprehensive solution to gang violence, combining enforcement, prevention, and intervention efforts in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like Operation Ceasefire.

The bill recognizes that the Federal Government can do more to fight gangs and that more tools must be made available to Federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors to stop the epidemic of gang violence. To this end, the bill establishes new, common sense Federal gang crimes and tougher Federal penalties.

Existing Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a sentencing enhancement, rather than as a crime unto itself.

The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion-- in furtherance of the gang.

The penalties for gang members committing such crimes would increase considerably.

For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment.

For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to 30 years.

For other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended use of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could bring up to 20 years in prison.

The bill also creates a new crime for recruiting juveniles and adults into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, or if the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up to 20 years.

It also creates new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in connection with drug trafficking, and increases existing penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering.

Finally, the bill also makes a host of other violent crime reforms, including closing a loophole that allows carjackers to avoid convictions, increasing the penalties for those who use guns in violent crimes or transfer guns knowing they will be used in crimes, and limiting bail for violent felons who possess firearms.

But the bill also recognizes that we cannot simply arrest our way out of the gang problem. It also focuses on prevention and intervention strategies to prevent our youth from joining street gangs and to give existing gang members a way out of that lifestyle.

Specifically, the bill would authorize over $1 billion in new funds over the next 5 years to address the gang problem, including: $411.5 million to fund gang prevention and intervention programs, like Operation Ceasefire, a proven gang prevention and intervention program successfully used in communities across the country; $187.5 million to establish High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas--Federal, State, and local law enforcement task forces to combat gangs and implement prevention programs; $100 million to fund the DOJ's Project Safe Neighborhood Program, the Federal Government's primary anti-gang initiative; $50 million for the Project Safe Streets Program, the FBI's primary gang investigation tool; $100 million for more prosecutors, technology, and equipment for gang investigations; $270 million for State witness protection programs in gang cases.

This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus common sense enforcement--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day has arrived and the Federal Government will no longer sit on the sidelines while gang violence engulfs the country.

This bill will provide gang members with new opportunities, with schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences.

For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have gotten close, including last session when the Senate passed this same bill. Unfortunately, while Congress as a whole has failed to act, violent street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more empowered and entrenched in other States and communities.

I believe this bill can again pass in the Senate and be enacted into law. The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and I believe this bill is well-suited to help solve it.

I urge my colleagues to favorably consider this legislation in the 111th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe to introduce legislation that will increase transparency, strengthen oversight, and require firms receiving financial lifelines from the Federal Government to practice responsible corporate governance.

Our bill--the Troubled Asset Relief Program Transparency Reporting Act--will achieve four essential objectives, prohibit firms receiving loans from the Federal Reserve or participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, from using this money for lobbying expenditures or political contributions; require that firms receiving government assistance provide detailed, publicly available quarterly reports to Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving Federal assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and create penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill.

The need for such legislation has become very apparent in the 3 months since Congress approved the economic rescue plan.

The economic rescue legislation passed in October includes several oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public funds are effectively distributed. But, it does not include any reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars.

This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of Federal money that some firms are receiving.

The Treasury Department has committed to purchasing $250 billion of preferred stock in financial institutions. More than 200 financial institutions have received roughly $188 billion. Of these funds, $125 billion was allocated to nine large national banks.

In addition to injecting capital into banks, American Insurance Group, AIG, has received an additional $40 billion and CitiGroup has received $20 billion of TARP funds.

Last month, GM received more than $10 billion in financing through the recently implemented Automotive Industry Financing Program.

This effectively means that the entirety of the first $350 billion of rescue funds has been spent.

When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30 billion

provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion for TARP, plus the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking about well over 1 trillion Federal dollars.

I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how their money is being spent, and I am not the only Member of Congress or elected official who feels this way.

In response to questions posed by the Congressional Oversight Panel for Economic Stabilization, the Treasury Department noted that it was committed to rigorous oversight of executive compensation packages. This may be the case, but executive compensation is only the beginning.

While I am pleased that CEOs at some financial institutions that accepted Federal assistance did not accept their annual bonuses last year, we still do not have an official accounting of how Federal funds were used.

Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not use public funds to pay exorbitant salaries or bonuses.

The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments, or mergers and acquisitions.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has reported that the Treasury Department had no strong accountability or oversight function to ensure that banks were using rescue assistance with the best interests of the public in mind.

It noted that Treasury had little ability to ensure that participating firms complied with laws already limiting executive compensation and conflicts of interest.

An investigation last month by the Associated Press found that many banks that have accepted Federal assistance are not able to say with certainty exactly how they have used the money. Some of these banks would not even discuss the issue.

We cannot be sure that the rescue funds are being used to stabilize the economy if banks are not keeping proper accounting of their use, and those that do will not disclose it.

Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.

On October 16, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that AIG, which received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to lobby State regulators to delay implementation of strengthened licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders.

AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry to ensure consumers were adequately protected.

Before this bill, in some States virtually anyone--even those with criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license.

Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans that they knew would never be paid back.

Of course, this has served as one of the catalysts for our current economic predicament.

And now AIG, propped up by billions in Government money after having succumbed to bad investments, was lobbying against the strong enforcement of State laws that might have helped prevent this catastrophe in the first place.

Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying operations.

I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of lobbying firms. The legislation which I am reintroducing today will make sure that does not happen.

I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster child for wasteful spending by rescued firms.

In September 2008, just days after receiving an $85 billion Federal lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in spa charges.

AIG executives spent the last 2 days of September 2008 on a golf outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from congressional leaders.

As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal Government.

Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that--even as AIG was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending $86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip, they stayed at a 17th century manor.

One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that: ``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today and we are relaxing fine.''

Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all nonessential expenditures. Yet weeks later, an undercover news crew caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and limousines.

One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might have a sobering effect on some of these firms.

But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete failure was not unique to AIG.

Following enactment of TARP, news reports have uncovered multiple instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary and outrageous expenditures, leading many taxpayers to question why these firms are receiving Federal assistance in the first place.

In November, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700 billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital injections into financial institutions.

Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and disclosure is striking.

We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and their executives to act sensibly and do what is right.

The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good use.

A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough.

Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California, where unemployment is 8.4 percent, and foreclosure filings exceeded 750,000 last year, is especially acute.

This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill.

This legislation is significant and sorely needed.

We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that promise.

I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Data Breach Notification Act.

This is a commonsense bill that is aimed at protecting personal information and preventing identity theft. The bill would require businesses and government agencies to notify individuals when their sensitive personal information has been exposed in a data breach.

As many of you know, I have been urging the Senate to adopt this legislation since 2003, when California first imposed a State notification requirement.

That legislation has helped consumers in my State. Federal data breach law would provide uniformity and protect consumers throughout the country.

With every year that passes, the evidence in support of this legislation has only continued to mount.

The cost of identity theft is enormous--estimated at more than $50 billion per year. Some of the costs fall on businesses and banks, which suffer losses from fraudulent transactions. Some of the costs are also borne by consumers, whose finances and credit ratings are disrupted.

Since the beginning of 2005, over 240 million data records containing individuals' sensitive personal data have been exposed in data breaches.

It seems that not a week goes by without news of another security breach that exposes names, addresses, birth dates, social security numbers, or other personal data.

These breaches have spawned a vast online market in stolen identities. Today, each person whose identity is sold on the internet faces a high risk of becoming a victim of identity theft. Each of them faces the expensive and time-consuming nightmare of trying to restore their finances and credit ratings.

According to a report by the Identity Theft Resource Center, the news media reported more than 620 breaches involving personal information during 2008. That works out to about one data security breach every 14 hours--and those are just the ones that are big enough to be covered in the media.

Recent reports of security breaches involving sensitive personal data point out the extent of the problem.

In December 2008, during a website development project at the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, the Social Security numbers of more than a quarter of a million people were accidentally posted online.

In August of last year, an employee working weekends at Countrywide copied customer records from an office computer and then sold the personal information of an estimated 2,000,000 mortgage applicants.

In May of 2007, a breach at the Transportation Security Administration made the names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, payroll information, and bank account information of more than 100,000 former employees vulnerable to theft or sale.

In January of that same year, hackers accessed information held by TJX stores, including more than 45 million credit card numbers and more than 455,000 merchandise records containing customers' drivers license numbers.

In May of 2006, there was a breach at the Department of Veterans Affairs that involved the names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers of every veteran discharged from the military since 1975--more than 28 million veterans--every veteran discharged from the military since 1975.

Another disturbing example took place last year at the State Department when the passport files of Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama--the three leading presidential contenders at the time--were accessed by contractors working for the Department. Though the Department knew about the breaches right away, several months passed before our colleagues were told about the problem.

Unfortunately, this delay is not surprising--because there is currently nothing to require a Federal agency to tell us when a security breach affects our personal data.

That needs to change. That's what my bill does.

Specifically, this legislation requires the Federal Government and private businesses to notify individuals when there has been a security breach involving their sensitive personal data; ensures that the notice is provided without unreasonable delay; creates very limited exceptions to notification for national security and law enforcement purposes, and when law enforcement certifies that there is there is no significant risk of harm to the individual; establishes penalties against those who do not provide the required notice. The provisions of the bill would be enforced by the Federal and State attorneys general; and pre-empts State laws so that there is a single, nationwide notification requirement.

Data security breaches have real consequences. For one thing, they are bad for business because they lead to a loss of confidence-- especially in online commerce. A 2005 survey for Consumer Reports showed that 25 percent of Internet users stopped shopping online because of fears about identity theft. Of people who still shopped online, 29 percent said that they had cut back on how often they buy products on the Internet.

Data breaches also pose serious harms for consumers. A November 2007 report from the Federal Trade Commission revealed that identity theft victims spent as much as $5,000 of their own money--and as many as 1,200 hours of their time--recovering from the harm to their finances caused by identity theft.

While not all data breaches lead to identity theft, the cost of stolen identities is so enormous that we should be doing everything we can to solve this problem.

The situation requires action. While Congress has been slow to act, the States have not. In the almost 6 years since the California law took effect, 43 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have passed similar laws.

A report issued by the Federal Trade Commission in December 2008 noted that these State data breach notification laws have had several indirect benefits; many businesses across the country have strengthened their safeguard practices in order to avoid data breaches.

By forcing companies to consider the potential cost and liability that may ensue if information is compromised in a data breach, these laws have the indirect benefit of motivating companies to reassess their need to collect personally identifiable information in the first place.

The same benefits would flow from Federal legislation. Additionally, the Data Breach Notification Act would improve the law by creating a single, uniform national standard.

A September 2008 report issued by the President's Identity Theft Task Force again emphasized the need for a unified Federal standard to replace the patchwork of varied state laws currently in place. The December 2008 FTC report made the same point.

A Federal bill will simplify the process of compliance and notification for

businesses, while ensuring that all consumers get the information they need as soon as possible when breaches happen.

We have already waited too long. The Judiciary Committee endorsed this bill unanimously during the last Congress. The epidemic of data breaches in our nation continues unabated. This is a common-sense bill that we should take action on now.

I urge the Senate to pass the Data Breach Notification Act to give Americans the information they need to protect themselves from identity theft.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help address the threats to public health and safety caused by abandoned hardrock mines.

There are as many as 500,000 abandoned mines strewn across the western states--47,000 alone are found on California's public lands.

The scope of this problem is huge.

In the past two years, eight accidents at abandoned mine sites were reported in California. Throughout the United States, at least 37 deaths occurred between 1999 and 2007 and the potential for more is ominous.

Basic remediation efforts, such as warning signs and fencing, can provide protection.

However, some abandoned mines pose a more serious threat. Environmental impact studies have shown that important watersheds are being polluted by high levels of harmful minerals, such as mercury, lead, arsenic and asbestos. In California alone, seventeen watersheds have been affected.

Yet not enough is being done to clean up these dangerous Gold Rush- era mines.

The bill that I am introducing today is not intended to be a comprehensive hardrock mining bill, but it is an important piece of the reform needed.

The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2009 will reform the 1872 Mining Law by establishing fees to support abandoned mine clean up; establishing a royalty payment system; and creating an Abandoned Mine Clean up Fund.

Unlike the coal industry, the metal mining industry does not pay to clean up its legacy of abandoned mines, making lack of funding the primary obstacle to abandoned hardrock mine clean up.

This legislation would help fund the clean up of abandoned mines by placing an Abandoned Mine Reclamation fee on all hardrock minerals, using the underground coal industry fee program as a model. Specifically, it would create a 0.3 percent reclamation fee on the gross value of all hardrock mineral mining, including mining on Federal, State, tribal, local and private lands.

The condition of abandoned coal mines has greatly improved since the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established a fee to finance restoration of land abandoned or inadequately restored by coal mining companies.

This fund has been able to raise billions of dollars for coal mine reclamation--and I believe that a similar program could be part of the solution to hardrock abandoned mine clean up.

This legislation establishes a royalty fee on Hardrock Mining Claims.

Companies that mine for gold and silver on Federal lands are not currently required to pay any royalties to the Federal Government--even though we are experiencing near record high gold prices.

These companies should be required to pay their fair share.

The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act establishes an 8 percent royalty on new mining operations located on Federal lands, and a 4 percent royalty for existing operations.

The legislation I am introducing today also creates an Abandoned Mine Fund.

In these times of budget deficits, it's clear that we will not be able to simply appropriate the funds necessary to clean up the hundreds of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines.

So, this legislation will create an abandoned mine clean up fund to ensure that we have a lasting source of funding for this critical clean up effort.

Specifically, the fund will direct the royalties, as well as other payments collected from mining operations, and dedicate them to the clean up of abandoned hardrock mines.

I recognize the important role that mining has played in California's history. The discovery of gold at Sutter Mill near Placerville, California in 1848 was a defining moment for my State and the U.S.

It is fair to say that without mining and the Gold Rush, California and the entire country would be a far different place than it is today.

The history of mining in California, however, is tarnished by the legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned mines. In particular, abandoned mine sites on Federal lands.

A recent report from the Department of the Interior's Inspector General underscores the scope and the urgency of

the abandoned mine problem on public lands--in particular, those managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.

The report concluded that public health and safety have been compromised by mismanagement, funding shortfalls and systematic neglect.

The report found the potential for more deaths and injuries is ominous. A number of abandoned mine sites on public lands present an immediate danger due to open shafts, collapsing mine walls, and rotting structures. Some have deadly gases that accumulate in underground passages. And others leach hazardous chemicals like arsenic, lead and mercury into groundwater.

The Bureau of Land Management's abandoned mines program has been neglected and understaffed. In some cases, staff were told by their supervisors to ignore these problems; and those who did come forward to identify contaminated sites were criticized or outright threatened.

The scope of the problem is less severe at the National Parks Service. But perennial funding shortfalls impede the clean up of known abandoned mines.

At the heart of the problem is a century-old law signed by President Ulysses S. Grant to promote the settlement of publicly-owned lands in the western states.

The 1872 Mining Law created national standards for hardrock mining operations on Federal public lands; however, it has not been substantially updated for 137 years. Under this outdated framework, the hardrock mining industry does not pay royalties for minerals taken from Federal land and is not obligated to share in the cost of clean up for abandoned mines. Since the enactment of this law, hundreds of thousands of mines have been abandoned.

Congress needs to move swiftly to address this issue before more damage and accidents occur.

Though this legislation is a significant step forward for the funding of abandoned mines, I know that there is much more mining reform to be done.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to modernize our Nation's mining laws and accelerate the clean up of dangerous abandoned mines.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: Social Security numbers.

The bill I am introducing today aims to protect individual privacy and prevent identity theft by eliminating the unnecessary use and display of Social Security numbers.

I have been working since the 106th Congress to safeguard Social Security numbers. I believe that the widespread display and use of these numbers poses a significant, and entirely preventable threat to personal privacy.

In 1935, Congress authorized the Social Security Administration to issue Social Security numbers as part of the Social Security program. Since that time, Social Security numbers have become the best-known and easiest way to identify individuals in the United States.

Use of these numbers has expanded well beyond their original purpose. Social Security numbers are now used for everything from credit checks to rental agreements to employment verifications, among other purposes. They can be found in privately held databases and on public records-- including marriage licenses, professional certifications, and countless other public documents--many of which are available on the Internet.

Once accessed, the numbers act like keys--allowing thieves to open credit card and bank accounts and even begin applying for government benefits.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, as many as 10 million Americans have their identities stolen by

such thieves each year--at a combined cost of billions of dollars.

What's worse, victims often do not realize that a theft has occurred until much later, when they learn that their credit has been destroyed by unpaid debt on fraudulently opened accounts.

One thief stole a retired Army captain's military identification card and used his Social Security number, listed on the card, to go on a 6- month, $260,000 shopping spree. By the time the Army captain realized what had happened, the thief had opened more than 60 fraudulent accounts.

A single mother of two went to file her taxes and learned that a fraudulent return had already been filed in her name by someone else--a thief who wanted her refund check.

A former pro-football player received a phone call notifying him that a $1 million home mortgage loan had been approved in his name even though he had never applied for such a loan.

Identity theft is serious. Once an individual's identity is stolen, people are often subjected to countless hours and costs attempting to regain their good name and credit. In 2004, victims spent an average of 300 hours recovering from the crime. The crime disrupts lives and can destroy finances.

It also hurts business. A 2006 online survey by the Business Software Alliance and Harris Interactive found that nearly 30 percent of adults decided to shop online less or not at all during the holiday season because of fears about identity theft.

When people's identities are stolen, they often do not know how the thieves obtained their personal information. Social security numbers and other key identifying data are displayed and used in such a widespread manner that individuals could not successfully restrict access themselves.

Comprehensive limitations on the display of Social Security numbers are critically needed.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted studies of this problem in 2002 and 2007. Both times--in studies entitled ``Social Security numbers Are Widely Used by Government and Could Be Better Protected'' and ``Social Security numbers: Use Is Widespread and Could Be Improved''--the GAO concluded that current protections are insufficient and that serious vulnerabilities remain.

The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect Americans' Social Security numbers. The bill would stop the sale or display of a person's Social Security number without his or her express consent; prevent Federal, State and local governments from displaying Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet; prohibit the printing of Social Security numbers on government checks; prohibit the employing of inmates for tasks that give them access to the Social Security numbers of other individuals; limit the circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her Social Security number; commission a study by the Attorney General regarding the current uses of Social Security numbers and the impact on privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties for misuse of Social Security numbers.

This legislation is simple. It is also critical to stopping the growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens.

As the President's Identity Theft Task Force reported last year, ``[i]dentity theft depends on access to . . . data. Reducing the opportunities for thieves to get the data is critical to fighting the crime.''

Every agency to study this problem has agreed that the problem will continue to grow over time and that action is needed.

I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Today, I am introducing the Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act of 2009--legislation intended to reverse the harmful, dangerous, un-American, and illegal detention and interrogation practices of the past seven years.

As I will describe in detail below, the four provisions in this bill would: Close the Guantanamo Bay detention centers, outlaw CIA's coercive interrogation program, prevent the use of contractor interrogations, and end secret detention at CIA black sites.

These practices have brought shame to our nation, have harmed our ability to fight the war on terror, and, I believe, violate U.S. law and international treaty obligations.

As was made crystal clear on last November 4, we need change and we need a new direction. When it comes to the war on terrorism, we need to disavow ``the Dark Side'' so embraced by the Bush administration. Instead, we need to follow our approach honed through the Cold War: standing by the strength of our values and ideals, building strong partnerships with allies, and mixing soft power with the force of our military might.

This legislation would put us back on the right track and I believe it to be fully consistent with the policies and intentions of President-elect Obama.

It is time to end the failed experiment at Guantanamo Bay. It is time to repudiate torture and secret disappearances. It is time to end the outsourcing of coercive interrogations to outside mercenaries. It is time to return to the norms and values that have driven the United States to greatness since the days of George Washington, but have been tarnished in the past 7 years.

First, this legislation requires the President to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay within 12 months.

The need to close Guantanamo is clear. Along with the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo has been decried as American hypocrisy and cruelty throughout the world. They have given aid in recruiting to our enemies, and have been named by Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora as the leading causes of death to U.S. troops in Iraq.

Numerous reports, most recently one completed and approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee, have documented the abusive methods used at Guantanamo.

Beyond the physical, psychological, and emotional abuse witnessed at Guantanamo, it has been the source of great legal embarrassment. The Supreme Court has struck down the Bush administration's legal reasoning four separate times: in the Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, and Boumediene decisions.

It was explicitly created to be a separate and lesser system of justice, to hold people captured on or near the battlefield in Afghanistan indefinitely. It has produced exactly three convictions, including Australian David Hicks who agreed to a plea bargain to get off the island, and Osama bin Ladin's driver, Salim Hamdan, who has already served almost all of his sentence through time already spent at Guantanamo.

The hard part about closing Guantanamo is not deciding to do it--it is figuring out what to do with the remaining detainees.

Under the Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, the approximately 250 individuals now being held there would be handled in one of five ways:

They could be charged with a crime and tried in the United States in the Federal civilian or military justice systems. These systems have handled terrorists and other dangerous individuals before, and are capable of dealing with classified evidence and other unusual factors.

Individuals could be transferred to an international tribunal to hold hearings, if such a tribunal is created; detainees could be returned to their native countries, or if that is not possible, they could be transferred to a third country.

To date, more than 500 men have been sent from Guantanamo to the custody other countries. Recently, Portugal and other nations have suggested they would be open to taking some of the remaining detainees as a way to help close Guantanamo.

If there are detainees who can't be charged with crimes or transferred to the custody of another country, there is a fourth option. If the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence agree that an individual poses no security threat to the United States, the U.S. Government may release him.

This may work, for example, for the Chinese Uighurs remaining at Guantanamo. In fact, a Federal court has already ordered that this group be released into the country, though that ruling has been stayed upon appeal.

Finally, for detainees who cannot be addressed in any of the first four options, the Executive Branch could hold them under the existing authorities provided by the law of armed conflict.

I believe that these options provide sufficient flexibility to handle the 250 or so people now being held at Guantanamo. If the incoming Obama Administration decides that other alternatives are needed, it should come to Congress, explain the specifics of the problem, and we will work toward a joint legislative solution.

The other three provisions in this legislation end parts of the CIA's secret detention and interrogation program.

Some of the details of the program are already publicly known, like the use of waterboarding on three individuals. Other aspects remain secret, such as the other authorized interrogation techniques and how they were used.

There have been public allegations of multiple deaths of detainees in CIA custody. There was one conviction of a CIA contractor in the death of a detainee in Afghanistan, but other details remain classified.

But it is well known that on August 1, 2002, the Justice Department approved coercive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, for the CIA's use. This despite the fact that the Justice Department has prosecuted the use of waterboarding and the State Department has decried it overseas.

The Administration used warped logic and faulty reasoning to say waterboarding technique was not torture. It is.

Other interrogation techniques used by the CIA have not been acknowledged but are still authorized for use. This has to end.

But we will never turn this sad page in our nation's history until all coercive techniques are banned, and are replaced with a single, clear, uniform standard across the United States Government.

That standard established by this legislation is the interrogation protocols set out in the Army Field Manual. The 19 specified techniques work for the military and operate under the same framework as the time- honored approach of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the CIA would abide by its terms, it would work for the CIA as well.

These techniques were at the heart of former FBI Special Agent Jack Cloonan's successful interrogation of those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. They were also the tools used by Special Agent George Piro to get Saddam Hussein to provide the evidence that resulted in his death sentence.

We have powerful expert testimony that the Army Field Manual techniques work against terrorist suspects. The Manual's use across the government is supported by scores of retired generals and admirals, by General David Petraeus, and by former secretaries of state and national security advisors in both parties.

Majorities in both houses of Congress passed this provision last year as part of the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill, sending a clear message that we do not support coercive interrogations.

Regrettably, the President's veto stopped it from becoming law.

The new President agrees that we need to end coercive interrogations and to comply strictly to the terms of the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. I look forward to working with him to end this sad story in the Nation's history.

The third part of this legislation is a ban on contractor interrogators at the CIA. As General Hayden has testified, the CIA hires and keeps on contract people who are not intelligence professionals and whose sole job is to ``break'' detainees and get them to talk.

I firmly believe that outsourcing interrogations, whether coercive or more appropriate ones, to private companies is a way to diminish accountability and to avoid getting the Agency's hands dirty. I also believe that the use of contractors leads to more brutal interrogations than if they were done by government employees.

There are surely areas where paying contractors makes practical and financial sense. Interrogations--a form of collecting intelligence--is not one of them. This has become a major diplomatic issue, a key obstacle in prosecuting people like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, and a national black eye. It is not the sort of thing to be done at arm's length.

The fourth and final provision in this legislation requires that the CIA and other intelligence agencies provide notification to the International Committee of the Red Cross--the ICRC--of their detainees. Following notification, the CIA will be required to provide ICRC officials with access to their detainees in the same way that the military does.

Access by the ICRC is a hallmark of international law and is required by the Geneva Conventions. Access to a third party, and the ICRC in particular, was seen by the U.S. in 1947 as a guarantee that American men and women would be protected if they were ever captured overseas.

But ICRC access has been denied at CIA black sites, just like it had been in some military-run facilities in the war on terror. This has, in part, opened the door to the abuses in detainee treatment. Independent access prevents abuses like we witnessed at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. It is time that the same protection is in place for the CIA as has been demanded of the Department of Defense.

We remain a nation at war, and credible, actionable intelligence remains a cornerstone of our war effort. But this is a war that will be won by fighting smarter, not by sinking to the depths of our enemies.

Our Nation has paid an enormous price because of these interrogations.

They cast shadow and doubt over our ideals and our system of justice.

Our enemies have used our practices to recruit more extremists.

Our key global partnerships, crucial to winning the war on terror, have been strained.

It will take time to resume our place as the world's beacon of liberty and justice. This bill will put us on that path and start the process. I urge its passage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, today I am, again, reintroducing the Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. For over four decades I have been a committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing patters be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer complications.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing.

While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there is no standardized public reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed practice, vocational, nurses, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals and does not

allow them to function to the full extent of their State practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the TRICARE Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Presdient, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in United States international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than United States registered ships, and are virtually untaxed. Their costs of operation are, therefore, lower than United States ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for United States-flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act

of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and Senate conference, language was included, which states that a United States vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in United States domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those United States ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in United States domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages. Specifically, (1) they are built in higher priced United States shipyards; (2) do not receive Maritime Security Payments, even when operated in international trade; and (3) are owned by United States-based American corporations. The inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is a further, unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of sufficient importance that in December 2006 Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade (Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.)

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 United States flag vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the United States corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income--so they receive the same treatment as other United States flag international operators. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent United States corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between United States flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax committees of the Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval.

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

Mr. President, today, I, again, introduce the Medicaid Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2009. This legislation would change the Federal law to expand fee-for-service Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their managed care panels.

Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions. Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse. They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While there are many titles given to these advanced practice

nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law has not kept up with the multiple specialties and titles of these advanced practitioners, nor has it recognized the critical role physician assistants play in the delivery of primary care.

I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations-- extremely rural, frontier, or urban areas. This legislation ensures they are recognized and reimbursed for providing the necessary health care services patients need, and it gives those patients the choice of selecting advanced practice nurses and physician assistants as their primary care providers.

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

Mr. President, almost 14 years ago, I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Nine years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. By settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after 7 years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of Hearing Officer).

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the payment of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim from amounts appropriated under section 1304 of title 31 of the United States Code. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal policy of removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede the remainder of their traditional lands--some 5 million acres in and around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics--including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to 5 million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.'' Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the

Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis-- particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most of those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 172) the Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949). Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the Wisconsin Bands proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other monies paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, and the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the claimant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of the Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of the monies owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act, ICCA, granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 (1950). The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long delayed is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations, which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada, and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

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

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation

designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act. Senator Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure. Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the construction of low-income housing for native Hawaiians and further provides authority for access to loan guarantees associated with the construction of housing to serve native Hawaiians.

Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of native Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest in the Nation.

The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now enjoyed by other Americans.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, again, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.

The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law in 1988, and has been reauthorized several times throughout the years.

The Act provides authority for a range of programs and services designed to improve the health care status of the native people of Hawaii.

With the enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act and the establishment of native Hawaiian health care systems on most of the islands that make up the State of Hawaii, we have witnessed significant improvements in the health status of native Hawaiians, but as the findings of unmet needs and health disparities set forth in this bill make clear, we still have a long way to go.

For instance, native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality rates in the State of Hawaii--rates that are 22 percent higher than the rate for the total State male population and 64 percent higher than the rate for the total State female population. Nationally, native Hawaiians have the third highest mortality rate as a result of breast cancer.

With respect to diabetes, in 2004 native Hawaiians had the highest mortality rate associated with diabetes in the State--a rate which is 119 percent higher than the statewide rate for all racial groups.

When it comes to heart disease, the mortality rate of native Hawaiians associated with heart disease is 86 percent higher than the rate for the entire State and the mortality rate for hypertension is 46 percent higher than that for the entire State.

These statistics on the health status of native Hawaiians are but a small part of the long list of date that makes clear that our objective of assuring that the native people of Hawaii attain some parity of good health comparable to that of the larger U.S. population has not yet been achieved.

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

Mr. President, the legislation I have reintroduced will extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our teaching hospitals require similar support.

As a result, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. These private hospitals typically have no mandate for community service. In contrast, nonprofit hospitals must fulfill a community service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain skilled staffing resulting in closures of nonprofit hospitals due to this financial strain.

The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. Non-profit hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma is especially costly.

Despite their financial problem the Nation's nonprofit hospitals strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 2006 issue of Archives of International Medicine had surveyed hospitals' quality of care in four areas of treatment. It found that nonprofit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. It also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in treatment and diagnosis. It said that investment in technology and staffing leads to better care. And it recommended that alternative payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these improvements.

The success and financial constraints of nonprofit teaching hospitals is evident in work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 147- year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit hospital in Hawaii. It serves as the primary clinical teaching facility for the University of Hawaii's medical residency programs in medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, and psychiatry. It conducts educational and training programs for nurses and allied health personnel. It operates the only trauma unit as well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs for native Hawaiians, and a small hospital on a rural, economically depressed island. Its medical reference library is the largest in the State. Not the least, it annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income from its endowment.

In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.

If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. Nonprofit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs as universities, schools, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule should be extended to teaching hospitals.

My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted than current law for schools, universities and pension trusts. Under safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a support organization for a teaching hospital can not buy and develop land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the organization endowment. The staff's revenue

estimates show that the provision with its general application will help a number of teaching hospitals.

The U.S. Senate several times has acted favorably on this proposal. The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the provision in H.R. 7, the CARE Act of 2002, and in S. 476, the CARE Act of 2003 which the Senate passed. In a previous Congress' S. 6, the Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.

As the Senate Finance Committee's recent hearings show, substantial health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is time for the Congress to assist the Nation's teaching hospitals in their charitable, educational service.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, again, to introduce the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 3 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Ensign in introducing the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2009. This bill would remove the arbitrary restrictions that prevent Americans from having an array of options for non-stop air travel between airports in Western states and LaGuardia International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

LaGuardia restricts the departure or arrival of non-stop flights to or from airports that are farther then 1,500 miles from LaGuardia. Washington National has a similar restriction for non-stop flights to or from airports 1,250 miles from Washington National. These restrictions are commonly referred to as the ``perimeter rule.'' This bill would abolish these archaic limitations that reduce consumers' options for convenient flights and competitive fares.

The original purpose of the perimeter rule was to promote LaGuardia and Washington National as airports for business travelers flying to and from East Coast and Midwest cities and to promote traffic to other airports by diverting long haul flights to Newark and Kennedy airports in the New York area and the Dulles airport in the Washington area. However, over the years, Congress has granted numerous exceptions to the perimeter rule because the air traveling public is eager for options. Today, exceptions are made for nonstop flights between LaGuardia and Denver and between Washington National and Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Seattle. Rather then continuing to take a piecemeal approach to promoting consumer choice, I urge Congress to take this opportunity once and for all to do away with this outdated rule.

I continue to believe that Americans should have access to air travel at the lowest possible cost and with the most convenience for their schedule. Therefore, I have always advocated for the removal of any artificial barrier that prevents free market competition. In 2004, I co-sponsored legislation to repeal the Wright Amendment which prohibited flights from Dallas' Love Field airport to 43 states. This year, I am proud to once again join with my colleagues to eliminate another unnecessary restraint through the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2009.

A 1999 study by the Transportation Research Board, the most recent available, stated that perimeter rules ``no longer serve their original purpose and have produced too many adverse side effects, including barriers to competition . . . The rules arbitrarily prevent some airlines from extending their networks to these airports; they discourage competition among the airports in the region and among the airlines that use these airports; and they are subject to chronic attempts by special interest groups to obtain exemptions.'' That same year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, stated that the

``practical effect'' of the perimeter rule ``has been to limit entry'' of other carriers and found that airfares at LaGuardia and Washington National are approximately 50 percent higher on average than fares at similar airports unconstrained by the perimeter rule. Such an anticompetitive rule should not remain in effect, particularly where its anticompetitive impact has long been recognized.

For this reason, I will continue the struggle to try to remove the perimeter rule and other anti-competitive restrictions that increase consumer costs and decrease convenience for no apparent benefit.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Economic Growth Through Innovation Act of 2009. This bill would make permanent the current research and development tax credit. Otherwise, this tax credit will expire on December 31, 2009.

A permanent credit would provide an incentive to innovate, and remove uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make research and development investment decisions for 2010 and beyond. The research and development tax credit was first established in 1981 and has been extended and revised repeatedly since then. Failure to make the tax credit permanent has led to reduced investment in research, which has led to fewer jobs being created in the United States. Tax policies have a powerful influence on business investment and hiring decisions, and that is why I have chosen to introduce this bill on the first day of the 111th Congress. Additionally, both President-elect Obama and I were in full agreement during the campaign that making permanent the research and development tax credit is critical to spurring investment in developing technologies.

In the 1980s, the U.S. was a leader among nations for providing the most generous tax treatment of research and development. By 2004, the most recent study, the United States had fallen to 17th, which explains why the U.S. is no longer considered by many to be the world leader in innovation and technology. A permanent, meaningful research and development tax credit will ensure that businesses keep funding research and development, which may lead to numerous new discoveries in the U.S. such as fuel-efficient vehicles, cancer treatment or the development of clean energy.

Studies have shown that on average, companies invest $94 in research and development for every $6 the Federal Government invests in the tax credit. While I understand that some economists have estimated this tax credit may cost many billions of dollars in tax revenue to the Federal government, I believe it is essential to spurring an economic recovery.

Companies of all sizes, in a wide range of industries, have taken advantage of the research and development tax credit during its existence. According to a recent study by Ernst & Young, 17,700 businesses claimed $6.6 billion research and development tax credits on their tax returns in 2005, the most recent year available. Almost a quarter of these businesses were small businesses with $1 million of assets or less, and almost half were businesses with assets of $1-$5 million, which is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Firms in the manufacturing, information and services sectors claimed the majority of the credit, and the states with the highest number of companies reporting research and development activity include those States that have been hit the hardest by the depressed economy such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and California.

Congress has endorsed the credit by extending it 13 times since enactment, and several times the credit has been reinstated retroactively. Yet, it has never been made permanent, creating a less certain investment atmosphere. With so many Republicans and Democrats in agreement that this tax credit must be made permanent, including President-elect Obama, I hope this bill will be given swift consideration and signed into law during the first few months of 2009 to increase our nation's ability to innovate, create jobs and improve our sagging economy.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2009. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure reported by the Commerce Committee during the first executive session of the 110th Congress, after being approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005. Simply put, this bill would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation.

Since 1996, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing--and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office spent more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest state and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization--though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission ``USBC'' or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of

professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

It is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems.

As this measure continues through the legislative process, I fully expect Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bipartisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the ``Bennett Freeze.'' Passage of this legislation would officially mark the end of roughly 40 years of litigation and land-lock between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe.

For decades the Navajo and the Hopi have been engrossed in a bitter dispute over land rights in the Black Mesa area just south of Kayenta, Arizona. The conflict extends as far back as 1882 when the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo reservations were initially defined resulting in a tragic saga of litigation and damaging federal Indian policy. By 1966, relations between the tribes became so strained over development and access to sacred religious sites in the disputed area that the federal government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed reservation land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing development in the Black Mesa area and restricted repairs on existing dwellings. This injunction became known as the ``Bennett Freeze,'' named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed the ban.

The Bennett Freeze was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent one tribe taking advantage of another until the land dispute could be settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere near resolution, and the construction freeze ultimately devastated economic development in northern Arizona for years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 people currently living in the Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions that haven't changed in half a century. While the population of the area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced to live together in homes that have been declared unfit for human habitation by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. Only 3 percent of the families affected by the Bennett Freeze have electricity. Only 10 percent have running water. Almost none have natural gas.

In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi peoples' desire to live together in mutual respect prevailed when both tribes approved an intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in the Bennett Freeze area. This landmark agreement also clarifies the boundaries of the Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures that access to religious sites of both tribes in protected. As such, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Department of Interior all support congressional legislation to lift the freeze.

The bill I am introducing today would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The intergovernmental compact approved last year by both tribes, the Department of Interior, and signed by the U.S. District Court for Arizona, marks a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. Lifting the Bennett Freeze gives us an opportunity to put decades of conflict between the Navajo and Hopi behind us.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and Scenic River.

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800s when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900s, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service, APS, one of the state's largest electric utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six threatened and endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private

property owners. I fully expect that as this measure continues through the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bipartisan manner.

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Thomas, Senator Kyl, and Senator Domenici in introducing a bill to amend the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. This legislation would improve Federal laws that protect the integrity and originality of Native American arts and crafts.

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act prohibits the misrepresentation in marketing of Indian arts and crafts products, and makes it illegal to display or sell works in a manner that falsely suggests it's the product of an individual Indian or Indian Tribe. Unfortunately, the law is written so that only the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, can investigate and make arrests in cases of suspected Indian art counterfeiters. The bill we are introducing would amend the law to expand existing Federal investigative authority by authorizing other Federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA Office of Law Enforcement, in addition to the FBI, to investigate cases of misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts. This bill is similar to provisions included in S. 1255, which passed the Senate last Congress but wasn't acted on by the House, and the Native American Omnibus Technical Corrections Act of 2007, S. 2087.

A major source of tribal and individual Indian income is derived from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts. Yet, millions of dollars are diverted each year from these original artists and Indian tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Few, if any, criminal prosecutions have been brought in Federal court for such violations. It is understandable that enforcing the criminal law under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes in Indian country. Therefore, expanding the investigative authority to include other Federal agencies is intended to promote the active investigation of alleged misconduct. It is my hope that this much needed change will deter those who choose to violate the law.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the Subcommittee and their staff.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and multiple-use needs.

The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area. I fully expect that as this measure continues through the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bi-partisan manner.

This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail is approximately 807 miles long and begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border near the Grand Canyon. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day.

For over a decade, more than 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have partnered to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Through their combined efforts, these agencies and the members of the Arizona Trail Association have completed over 90 percent of the longest contiguous land-based trail in the State of Arizona. Designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would help streamline the management of the high-use trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated over 20 national trails. Before a trail receives a national designation, a federal study is typically required to assess the feasibility of establishing a trail route. The Arizona Trail doesn't require a feasibility study because it's virtually complete with less than 60 miles left to build and sign. All but 1- percent of the trail resides on public land, and the unfinished segments don't involve private property. The trail meets the criteria to be labeled a National Scenic Trail and already appears on all Arizona state maps. Therefore, the Congress has reason to forego an unnecessary and costly feasibility study and proceed straight to National Scenic Trail designation.

The Arizona Trail is known throughout the State as boon to outdoor enthusiasts. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest- growing states in the United States, the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am proud to again be joining forces with my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to introduce a comprehensive earmark reform measure. We are also pleased to be joined by Senators McCaskill, Graham, and Coburn as cosponsors in this effort. The measure we are introducing today is designed to eliminate unauthorized earmarks and wasteful spending in appropriations bills and conference reports and help restore fiscal discipline to Washington. Specifically, this bill would allow any member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions. Additionally, it contains a requirement that all appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours before full Senate consideration, and a requirement that the recipients of Federal dollars disclose any amounts that they spend on registered lobbyists. These are reasonable, responsible reform measures that deserve consideration by the full Senate.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed. As we enter the second year of a recession, the economy is in shambles. Record numbers of homeowners face foreclosure, our financial markets have nearly collapsed, and the U.S. automobile manufacturers are near ruin. The national unemployment rate stands at 6.7 percent--the highest in 15 years--with over 1.9 million people having lost their jobs last year.

In the last year alone, due to the mortgage crisis, the Government has seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress passed a massive $700 billion rescue of the financial markets, and we've debated giving the big-three auto manufacturers tens of billions in taxpayer dollars--just as a ``short-term'' infusion of cash--knowing that they'd be back for more. Additionally, we're getting ready to consider an economic stimulus package which is estimated to cost as much as $850 billion to a trillion dollars. With all of this spending, we can no longer afford to waste even a single dime of taxpayer money.

It is abundantly clear that the time has come for us to eliminate the corrupt, wasteful practice of earmarking. We have made some progress on the issue in the past couple of years, but we have not gone far enough. Legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure of earmarks. While that was a good step forward, the bottom line is that we don't simply need more disclosure of earmarks--we need to eliminate them.

As my colleagues are well aware, for years I have been coming to the Senate floor to read list after list of the ridiculous items we've spent money on--hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change. And year after year I would offer amendment after amendment to strip pork barrel projects from spending bills--usually only getting a handful of votes each time.

Finally, I was encouraged in January 2007 when this body passed, by a vote of 96-2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reform. I thought that, at last, we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, that victory was short lived. In August 2007, we were presented with a bill containing very watered down earmark provisions. Not only did that bill, S. 1, do far too little to rein in wasteful spending--it completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we passed overwhelmingly the previous January.

Earmarks, Mr. President, are like a cancer. Left unchecked, they have grown out of control--increasing by nearly 400 percent since 1994. And just as cancer destroys tissue and vital organs, the corruption associated with the process of earmarking is destroying what is vital to our strength as a nation--that is the faith and trust of the American people in their elected representatives and in the institutions of their government.

Not long ago, in the House of Representatives, when another member questioned the necessity of one of his earmarked projects, a Congressman raged at the idea of someone challenging what he described as ``my

money, my money.'' Therein lies the problem, Mr. President. Too many Members of Congress view taxpayers, funds as their own. They feel free to spend it as they see fit, with no oversight and, often, no shame. Look at some of the things we've funded over the years: $225,000 for an Historic Wagon Museum in Utah, $1 million for a DNA study of bears in Montana, $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Ohio, $220,000 for blueberry research at the University of Maine, $3 million for an animal waste management research facility in Kentucky, $170,000 for blackbird management in Kansas, $196,000 for geese control in New York, $50,000 for feral hog control in Missouri, $90,000 for the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Fort Worth, Texas, $200,000 for an American White Pelican survey, $6 million for sugarcane growers in Hawaii, $13 million for a ewe lamb retention program, $500,000 to study flight attendant fatigue, $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Pennsylvania and New York, $3 million for the production of a documentary about Alaska, $1 million for a waterless urinal initiative, $500,000 for a Teapot museum in North Carolina, $1.1 million to research the use of Alaskan salmon in baby food, $25 million for a fish hatchery in Montana, $37 million over four years to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board to ``promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries.'' So how exactly does this Board spend the money Congress so generously earmarks every year? Well, they spent $500,000 of it to paint a giant salmon on the side of an Alaska Airlines 747--and nicknamed it the ``Salmon Forty Salmon.''

Unfortunately, I could go on and on with examples of wasteful earmarks that have been approved by Congress. And we wonder why our approval rating stands at 20 percent.

The corruption which stems from the practice of earmarking has resulted in current and former Members of both the House and Senate either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. Let's be clear--it wasn't inadequate lobbyist disclosure requirements which led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for doling out $70-$80 million of the taxpayer's funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question.

We cannot allow this to continue. Now is the time to put a stop to this corrupt practice. The bill we are introducing today seeks to reform the current system by empowering all Members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of the legislative process.

We, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. By seriously addressing the corrupting influence of earmarks, we will allow Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence. We can, and we must, end the practice of earmarking.

Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for his strong leadership on this issue, and I encourage the Senate act quickly to approve this measure.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Generics First Act. This legislation requires the Federal Government's Medicare Part D prescription drug program to use generic drugs whenever available, unless a brand-name drug is determined to be medically necessary by a physician. Modeled after similar provisions in many state-administered Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the high costs of the new prescription drug program and keep seniors from reaching the current coverage gap, or ``donut hole,'' by guiding beneficiaries toward cost- saving generic drug alternatives.

We know that the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive, placing a financial strain on seniors, families, and businesses that are struggling to pay their health care bills. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, spending on prescription drugs totaled $227.5 billion in 2007. People need help now and we must respond by expanding access to generic drugs. Generics, which on average cost 60 percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the solution to health care costs that are spiraling out of control.

Generic drugs that are approved by the FDA must meet the same rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness as brand-name drugs. In addition to being safe and effective, the generic must have the same active ingredient or ingredients, be the same strength, and have the same labeling for the approved uses as the brand-name drug. In other words, generics perform the same medicinal purposes as their respective brand-name product.

We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of dollars and curb health spending for the Federal Government, employers, and families. Every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This legislation is just one part of a larger agenda I'm pushing to remove the obstacles that prevent generics from getting to market, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing the Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act of 2009 with my colleagues Senators Collins and Lincoln. This legislation, which we introduced last Congress, will make it more difficult for financial predators to take advantage of homeowners in foreclosure.

Foreclosure rescue scams are another consequence of the housing crisis that is plaguing the country. Foreclosure filings have been climbing across the country for the past two years and in Wisconsin, filings have risen 22 percent over the past year. Additionally, the Federal Reserve estimates that 2.5 million Americans will be facing foreclosure in 2009. As default rates and foreclosure filings have steadily increased, so have financial scams which prey on homeowners. The Better Business Bureau listed foreclosure rescue scams as one of the top ten financial scams in 2008.

For most people, their home is their greatest asset. When a homeowner falls behind in their payments, it can cause a great deal of emotional stress on the family. Scam artists prey on owner's desperation and give them a false sense of security, claiming they can help ``save their home.'' The types of scams vary, but the end result is that the homeowner is left in a more desperate situation than before.

The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act aims to prevent these cruel abuses by increasing disclosure and creating strict requirements for a person or entity offering foreclosure-rescue services. The legislation prohibits a ``foreclosure consultant'' from collecting any fee or compensation before completing contracted services, and from obtaining power of attorney from a homeowner. It also requires full disclosure of third-party consideration in the property and creates a 3-day right to cancel the foreclosure-rescue contract. Finally, the legislation creates a federal ``floor'' of protection and allows states without rescue-fraud laws to use these provisions as a way to help scam victims. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act will make it easier for states and the Federal Government to combat these schemes and protect people who are already financially distressed from being made worse off.

The past year has exposed the irregularities and inadequacies of our banking regulations. As Congress continues to work on proposals to restore confidence in our financial industry, it is imperative that we put in place new rules and regulations that better protect consumers in order to avoid further economic strain.

Mr. President, I am introducing the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2008 with my colleague Senator Charles Schumer for the purpose of expanding and improving the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. Section 202 provides capital grants to nonprofit community organizations for the development of supportive housing and provision of rental assistance exclusively for low-income seniors. This program supplies housing that includes access to supportive services to allow seniors to remain safely in their homes and age in place. Access to supportive services reduces the occurrence of costly nursing home stays and helps save both seniors and the Federal Government money.

There are over 300,000 seniors living in 6,000 Section 202 developments across the country. Unfortunately, the program is far from meeting the growing demand. Approximately 730,000 additional senior housing units will be needed by 2020 in order to address the future housing needs of low-income seniors. There are currently 10 seniors vying for each unit that becomes available, with many seniors waiting years before finding a home. To make matters worse, we are losing older Section 202 properties to developers of high-priced condominiums and apartments. As a result, many seniors currently participating in the program could end up homeless.

Congress needs to act now to address the demand for safe, affordable senior housing. Our legislation would promote the construction of new senior housing facilities as well as preserve and improve upon existing facilities. The legislation would also support the conversion of existing facilities into assisted living facilities that provide a wide variety of additional supportive health and social services. Under current law, these processes are time-consuming and bureaucratic, often requiring waivers and special permission from HUD. Finally, our legislation provides priority consideration for our homeless seniors seeking a place to call their own. With this bill, we hope to reduce current impediments and increase the availability of affordable and supportive housing for our Nations most vulnerable seniors.

I want to thank the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging as well as the Wisconsin Association of Homes and Services for the Aging for being champions of this legislation and for working with us to develop a comprehensive bill that will help meet the growing need for senior housing in this Nation.

Senior citizens deserve to have housing that will help them maintain their independence. I urge that my colleagues will join Senator Schumer and me in our efforts to ensure that older Americans have a place to call home during their golden years.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation essential to restoring competition to the nation's crucial freight railroad sector. Freight railroads are essential to shipping a myriad of vital goods, everything from coal used to generate electricity to grain used for basic foodstuffs. But for decades the freight railroads have been insulated from the normal rules of competition followed by almost all other parts of our economy by an outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemption. So today I am introducing along with my colleagues, Senators Vitter, Leahy, Feingold, Schumer, Rockefeller, Dorgan and Klobuchar, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. This legislation will eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. This legislation is identical to the legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress without dissent.

Our legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect

freight railroads from competition and result in higher prices to millions of consumers every day. Consolidation in the railroad industry in recent years has resulted in only four Class I railroads providing over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail transportation. The lack of competition was documented in an October 2006 Government Accountability Office report. That report found that shippers in many geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of competition in these markets.'' These unjustified cost increases cause consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay for the high cost of transporting coal, result in higher prices for goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw materials, and reduce earnings for American farmers who ship their products by rail and raise food prices paid by consumers.

The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers have faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of outmoded exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide. In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of competition and asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed.

These unwarranted antitrust exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. A coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected organizations--Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my state are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.

Similar stories exist across the country. We held a hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee in September 2007 which detailed numerous instances of anti-competitive conduct by the dominant freight railroads and at which railroad shippers testified as to the need to repeal the outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions which left them without remedies. Dozens of organizations, unions and trade groups--including the American Public Power Association, the American Chemistry Council, American Corn Growers Associations and many more affected by monopolistic railroad conduct endorsed the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act in the last Congress.

The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anticompetitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions.

No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980-- deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the rules of fair competition. And there is no reason to treat railroads any differently from dozens of other regulated industries in our economy that are fully subject to antitrust law--whether the telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC, or the aviation industry regulation by the Department of Transportation, to name just two examples.

Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal government, state attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses.

In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.

It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing''. In June 2007, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case incorrectly interpreted the Sherman Act to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill--identical to legislation I introduced in 2007 (S. 2261 in the 110th Congress)--will correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se ban on vertical price fixing. Our bill has been endorsed by 34 state attorneys general as well as numerous antitrust experts, including former FTC Chairman Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour.

The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price fixing permitted discounters to sell goods

at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the Internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices.

From my own personal experience in business I know of the dangers of permitting vertical price fixing. My family started the Kohl's department stores in 1962, and I worked there for many years before we sold the stores in the 1980s. On several occasions, we lost lines of merchandise because we tried to sell at prices lower than what the manufacturer and our rival retailers wanted. For example, when we started Kohl's and were just a small competitor to the established retail giants, we had serious difficulties obtaining the leading brand name jeans. The traditional department stores demanded that the manufacturer not sell to us unless we would agree to maintain a certain minimum price. Because they didn't want to lose the business of their biggest customers, that jeans manufacturer acquiesced in the demands of the department stores--at least until our lawyers told them that they were violating the rule against vertical price fixing.

So I know firsthand the dangers to competition and discounting of permitting the practice of vertical price fixing. But we don't need to rely on my own experience. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. Studies Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the States that allowed vertical price fixing than the States that had not passed such ``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $ 2.1 billion per year at that time.

Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is even grater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today would be $ 300 billion, translating into retail bills that would average $ 750 to $ 1,000 higher for the average family of four every year.

And the experience of the last year and a half since the Leegin decision is beginning to confirm our fears regarding the dangers from permitting vertical price fixing. In December 2008, for example, Sony announced that it would implement a no-discount rule to retailer's selling some of its most in-demand products, including some models of high-end flat screen TVs and digital cameras. On December 4, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that a new business has materialized for companies that scour the Internet in search of retailers selling products at a bargain. When such bargain sellers are detected, the manufacturer is alerted so that they can demand the seller end the discounting of its product. The chilling effect on discounting of such tactics is clear--in one example, the Wall Street Journal reported that Circuit City was forced to raise its retail price for an LG flat screen TV by $ 170 to nearly $ 1,600 after its discount price was discovered on the Internet.

Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers such as Walmart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers.

In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an ``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses involved possess market power ``is a further, significant consideration'' under the rule of reason.

In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores with limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a virtual euphemism for per se legality.''

In July 2007, our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted an extensive hearing into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing the ban on vertical price fixing. Both former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms discount clothing stores, did so as well, citing the likely dangers to the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company ``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position in the marketplace to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices for consumers.

The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day.

In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Weekend Voting Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation that I first proposed in 1997.

We have recently completed the most serious business of our democracy--a Presidential election in which millions and millions of citizens demonstrated an enormous amount of enthusiasm. We all want every eligible voter to participate and cast a vote. But recent experience has shown us that unneeded obstacles are placed preventing citizens from exercising their franchise. The debacle of defective ballots and voting methods in Florida in the 2000 election galvanized Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The Help America Vote Act, which was enacted into law in 2002, was an important step forward in establishing minimum standards for States in the administration of Federal elections and in providing funds to replace outdated voting systems and improve election administration. However, there is much that still needs to be done.

With more and more voters seeking to cast their ballots on Election Day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to voting on just one election day. Twenty-eight States, including my own State of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee ballot. These states constitute nearly half of the voting age citizens of the United States. Thirty-one States permit in-person early voting at election offices or at other satellite locations. The State of Oregon now conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are critical if we are to conduct fair elections for it has become unreasonable to expect that a Nation of 300 million people can line up at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. If we continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create barriers to voting.

That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to the first weekend in November. Holding our Federal elections on a weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to undermine our elections.

Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period of time from 10 a.m. Saturday eastern time to 6 p.m. Sunday eastern time. Polls in all time zones would in the 48 contiguous states also open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls would be open on both Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious observances.

Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental United States, also addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country, or even a state, from influencing voting in places where polls are still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of buildings available for polling stations and people available to work at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers.

Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that holding elections on a non-working day can increase voter turnout. In one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter participation rates.

In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform recommended that we move our Federal election day to a national holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a non-working day.

Since the mid 19th century, election day has been on the first Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land owning voters were often coming to town anyway.

Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to make voting easier for the regular family. We have outgrown our Tuesday voting day tradition, a tradition better left behind to a bygone horse and buggy era. In today's America, 60 percent of all households have two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only 12 hours on a Tuesday, generally from 7 a.m. to 7 or 8 p.m., voters often have only one or two hours to vote. As we've seen in recent elections, long lines in many polling places have kept some voters waiting much longer than one or two hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote.

With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reform how our Nation votes. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the integrity of future elections and full participation by as many Americans as possible--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a commonsense proposal whose time has come.

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

Mr. President, yesterday the administration's own Department of Health and Human Services health analysis warned Americans about the impact of this bill. According to the official scorekeepers at CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Reid health care bill will actually not only increase our national health care costs by $234 billion over the next 10 years but will also reduce access and cut benefits for our seniors. This nonbiased report simply proves what we have been saying all along: You cannot reform a $2.4 trillion health care system simply by spending another $2.5 trillion of hard-earned taxpayer money. Despite all the rhetoric from the other side about this historic legislation, the only thing this bill accomplishes, after imposing $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes and $\1/ 2\ trillion in Medicare cuts, is to simply bend our Nation's health care cost curve up.

As a longtime supporter of the Medicare Advantage Program, I offered an amendment on the Senate floor to strip nearly $120 billion in cuts to the Medicare Advantage Program that provides comprehensive health benefits, including vision, dental, and reduced cost-sharing, to almost 11 million seniors.

Unfortunately, despite statements from the Congressional Budget Office that these cuts would result in reduced cuts for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, Democrats in the Senate voted to keep the cuts in the package to finance more Federal spending--$500 billion in cuts in Medicare. Whom are they kidding? Medicare has $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

This report is another reminder of why it was a mistake to not adopt my amendment. The CMS Actuary found that the cuts to the Medicare Advantage Program in the Reid bill would not only result in ``less generous benefit packages'' for our seniors but, more important, it would decrease enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans by 33 percent.

Clearly, health care spending continues to grow too fast. This year will mark the largest ever 1-year jump in the health care share of our GDP. This jump is a full percentage point to 17.6 percent. You can think of this as a horse race between costs and resources to cover those costs. The sad reality is that costs win year after year.

Growing health care costs translate directly into higher coverage costs. Since the last decade, the cost of health coverage has increased by 120 percent, three times the growth of inflation and four times the growth of wages. Rising costs is the primary driver behind why we continue to see a rising number of uninsured in our country

and why increasing numbers of businesses find it hard to compete in a global market.

Without addressing this central problem, we cannot have a real and sustainable health care reform bill. So what does this $2.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill do to address health care costs? Absolutely nothing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the premiums for Americans who buy insurance on their own will actually increase by 10 to 13 percent, while premiums for small and large groups will largely remain unchanged and continue to rise between 5 to 6 percent a year.

Furthermore, according to the CMS report, the new fees on prescription drugs, medical devices, such as wheelchairs and hearing aids, and health care plans will not only increase overall health care prices but also health insurance premiums for millions of Americans.

Let me make this point as clearly as I can. This bill does not address the underlying problem of slowing down the growth of health care costs. It simply spends hundreds of billions of dollars in new subsidies to buy out the cost of these increases for families making up to $80,000 a year. Instead of fixing the real problems, this bill simply tries to spend its way out of the problems. Does that sound new to you? This administration seems to think that just throwing money at things is going to help.

We have been hearing a lot recently about how Democrats are throwing the government-run plan out of their bill to quickly jam this bill through the Senate before Christmas. The American people need to be careful about believing this propaganda. The Democratic solution to the government plan is a Ponzi scheme that would embarrass even Bernie Madoff himself.

I have to be fair here. I have to rely on news reports to discuss these provisions. You heard me right--news reports. Why is that? Because no one knows what is actually in the bill they have sent to the CBO. Not even my friends on the Democratic side, by and large, know. The Reid bill was put together by very few Democrats with the White House in the back rooms of the Capitol. Nobody really knew what they were doing until they came out with it.

Once we all saw it, we all realized what a mess that is. They found themselves in trouble, so they have gone and done another bill and submitted it to CBO, and hardly anybody on the floor knows exactly what the features are in that bill. No one knows actually what is in the bill. And despite the continuous claims of transparency our friends on the other side are always talking about, the real bill continues to change on a daily basis behind the closed doors of the majority leader's office.

I am really glad to know that it is not just the Republicans who are in the dark about what is actually in this bill. Democratic Members of Congress in this body are also in the same boat. It is really unbelievable. We are being asked to move forward on legislation that will reform one-sixth of the American economy and impact every American life and business without knowing what is actually in the bill. We have to rely on news reports. I have never seen anything like this in my 33 years of Senate service.

One proposal that has come to the floor in recent days is the idea of expanding Medicare to include coverage for Americans 55 and over. Currently, we all know Medicare is for Americans 65 and over. It is a bankrupt program. It is well intentioned, it does a lot of good, but it is bankrupt. It is a program that can barely pay for the benefits of the 40 million seniors in it today. Medicare is on a path to fiscal meltdown, with Part A facing bankruptcy by 2017. I don't think anybody denies that. It underpays doctors by 20 percent and hospitals by 30 percent compared to the private sector, forcing an increasing number of providers to simply stop seeing our Nation's seniors.

According to the June 2008 MedPAC report, 9 out of 10 Medicare beneficiaries have to get additional benefits beyond their Medicare coverage.

What is Washington's solution to address this problem and crisis? Take up to $500 billion out of this bankrupt program and at the same time push millions of Americans into it. Does that sound logical to you?

The CMS report states in clear terms that the Medicare cuts in this bill could jeopardize our seniors' access to care. The cuts would result in nearly 20 percent of all Part A providers, such as hospitals and nursing homes, operating in the red within the next 10 years as a result of these cuts. Twenty percent--that is a pretty big number.

It should come as no surprise that this proposal faces strong opposition from a wide variety of provider groups, from doctors and hospitals that are already under tremendous financial pressure due to underpayments from Medicare.

Keep in mind, the AMA here in Washington has backed this monstrosity. Now some people think that AMA represents all the doctors. It does not. The average doctor out there is incensed about this. Adding more lives to this insolvent Medicare Program will only further limit their ability to see all Medicare patients, not just the new ones.

Even more troubling is the impact of this expansion on the premiums of our Medicare seniors from this ill-conceived policy. This expansion would encourage an influx of sick Americans in private coverage into Medicare, which will simply raise premiums for seniors already enrolled in Medicare. So seniors, expect your cost of Medicare to go up.

So why are Democrats pushing this idea? Congressman Anthony Weiner said it best. I think he was very honest; very upfront. He said this:

Extending this successful program to those between 55 and

64, a plan I proposed in July, would be the largest expansion

of Medicare in 44 years and would perhaps get us on the path

to a single-payer model.

Well, the Democratic endgame on health care reform is crystal clear: Make as many Americans as possible dependent on the Federal Government programs. Democrats believe by making millions of Americans dependent on big government programs, on the backs of their grandchildren's future, they are taking a huge leap toward creating a permanent majority for themselves. Why, it would be a natural constituency for them.

Well, let me tell you this--America is built on the spirit of self- reliance, not government handouts. Poll after poll, especially the CNN poll, has said 61 percent of Americans are now opposed to the bill, and study after study is warning us this is the wrong solution for our Nation. This unknown bill, which continues to change by the day behind closed doors, is a direct violation of the President's own pledge to only support a reform that would reduce costs, protect benefits, and not raise taxes.

I sincerely hope the Democrats will step away from their arrogance of power and listen to the will of the American people. It is not too late for us to push the reset button and work on health care reform in a truly bipartisan manner. We are eager and willing, as we have been all year, to work on a responsible solution that every American can be proud of. There are all kinds of things we could agree on, that Republicans would work hand in glove with Democrats to solve, if they were willing to do it.

But keep in mind the HELP Committee bill was totally Democratic. Not one Republican was asked to help write it. The House bill, totally Democratic. Not one Republican was asked to help write it. I admit my friend, the Senator from Montana, Max Baucus, worked hard to try to get a bipartisan bill. But in the end, he did not have enough flexibility to reach a deal. All of a sudden, he finds his bill being put together--between the House bill and the HELP Committee bill--behind closed doors, with very few people involved--all Democrats and the White House and probably two or three or four or five from the Senate but no more than that.

Throughout this debate, I have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side of the aisle how Republicans are opposed to this $2.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill because, as the Democrats incorrectly suggest, we want the status quo. Oh, give me a break. We all know this is completely false. We on this side of the aisle have asked the Democrats over and over again to step back and write a new bill with us. But they are so consumed with their arrogance of power that they simply want to push what they have always wanted; that is, more government and more government controls over all our lives. America is a

free nation, the greatest Nation in the history of mankind. What makes us great is not our reliance on the Federal Government but our individual resolve and strength. Americans want the Federal Government to help them, not support them.

Well, let me tell you the other side of this. In a recent Gallup Poll, Independents around this country opposed this bill 53 to 37. These are Independents. So it would be wise for my Democratic friends to realize America is not behind them; not behind this bill. It is time for them to listen to what the majority of Americans want and that is not this bill.

I cannot tell you the kind of opposition I have seen in my State to this bill. It is almost unprecedented. I read it in the letters, hear it in the calls. At airports and grocery store aisles and on the streets people stop me and say: Don't let that thing pass.

Absolute power corrupts, and that is what we are seeing in Washington today. Democrats control the White House, the House, they have a filibuster-proof Senate and they have used this absolute power to rubberstamp this administration's big-government agenda and have tripled our deficit within 1 year--1 year. We will run deficits of at least $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future, while our national debt will triple. We are literally mortgaging the future of this country to foreign countries as we speak. Enough is enough. Let us step back and start over on a plan we can all be proud of and all work on.

We hear a lot about how the Republicans are simply standing for big and evil insurance companies and how the Democrats are the defenders of American families. Well, these days, nowhere is this Democratic hypocrisy more clear than the individual, mandated policy that is part of this tax-and-spend legislation.

Let's be very clear about who would benefit the most from this provision, which would, for the first time in our Nation's history, give the Federal Government the power to force Americans to either buy health insurance or face a tax penalty enforced by our friends at the Internal Revenue Service. There are only two clear winners under this policy, and it is not the American families. First, it is the Federal Government, that will now use this authority as a blank checkbook to increase the penalty in the future as a new revenue stream for its out- of-control spending habits; and, second, are the insurance companies, that will now reap the benefits of having Americans being forced to buy coverage at the decree of the Federal Government.

Right now, States are responsible for determining policies that best meet their unique demographic needs and challenges. Massachusetts, for example, has decided to implement an individual mandate, while Utah has decided not to. Under this bill, we are explicitly taking away this State flexibility and authority to give the Federal Government the authority to make this one-size-fits-all decision for all 50 States and every American. This is an unprecedented grab of State power by Washington--a fundamental threat to the very Federalist vision our Founding Fathers used more than 200 years ago to create the greatest Nation in the history of the world, in the history of mankind.

I am gravely concerned about the precedent this policy will set for us as a nation going forward. If the Federal Government can force us to buy health insurance, what else can it force us to do? The possibilities are endless, just like my concerns, which I share with millions of Americans, on Washington's growing role in our private lives and personal decisions. Think about it. Washington has become an unwanted houseguest in our homes and lives who will not leave. If it does not start listening to the families, it will get kicked out, sooner rather than later. Think about it.

A couple of our friends have even said: Well, it is similar to car insurance. The States require you to buy insurance for your car, and it is in the best interest of the community that you do so. Well, the reason they do is because you want to drive. It is an activity you want to participate in, and so they get away with it. Here, if they have an individual mandate, they are forcing you to buy policies that are defined by Washington. If you don't, you are going to be penalized.

This has never happened before in our lives. If they can get away with this, I have to tell you, they can get away with anything. The liberties of all Americans are going to be affected by it. This is not an activity. This is not something we choose to do necessarily. If we choose to do it on our own, that is great. But to have the government come in and say you have to buy this policy--for the first time in history--you have to do this, even though you don't want to buy it, is unprecedented.

Well, let me say, I think it is fair to see I am not very enthused about the health care ideas of our colleagues. But I do wish to end on a positive note. There are some good things we can all do, some of which are in the bill. It is not totally bad. It is only about 90 percent bad, but there is at least 10 percent we could build on; that we could work together on.

I am not just saying that. Look, I have been around here a long time. I can name all kinds of bills I have worked on with some of the most liberal people in the whole Congress to pass. Hatch-Waxman is a perfect illustration. That created the modern generic drug industry. Henry Waxman is as liberal as it gets but he was willing to face up to these realities with me, and we did Hatch-Waxman. I call it Waxman-Hatch when I am around him.

I might add the orphan drug bill. We found there were only maybe two or three orphan drugs being developed. These are drugs to benefit population groups of less than 200,000. Well, it is clear the drug companies can't afford to do it for 200,000 people because it costs upward of $1 billion. Biological drugs cost even more than that, and they are not truly drugs. But the fact is, they cost even more than that. We came up with some very small incentives--but they were incentives with prestige--and some tax breaks and all of a sudden it was about a $14 million or $15 million bill, as I recall, in the early 1980s, when I was chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. Today, we have well over 300 orphan drugs being developed, many of which have been developed, and from some of them blockbuster drugs have evolved.

Let's take the CHIP bill. That was the Hatch-Kennedy bill. Ted Kennedy, very liberal. He would have preferred to have the Federal Government do it all--just like our colleagues do today with this enormous number of 60 votes on their side--but he was willing to work with me. I went to him and said: Look, I had two families from Provo, UT, come to visit me--husbands and wives. In each family's case, both the husband and the wife work. Neither family's combined joint income is over $20,000 a year. At that time, it was too much to have their kids qualify for Medicaid and too little for them to be able to buy health insurance. I said: The only kids left out of the health care equation are children of the working poor. Teddy, we have to do something about that. He saw it, and he said yes.

He wasn't happy with the bill, in the end, because it was exactly what I told him it would be. It would basically be block-grants to states, where the States would handle it in accordance with their own demographics. It has worked amazingly well, until now. They are shoving more and more people into CHIP, other than the children of the working poor whom we originally decided to help.

Well, I could go on and on and on, on so many pieces of legislation, but I will just mention those few. I am very concerned because I actually believe that if we get what they are talking about on the other side, it will not only bankrupt the country, it will make more and more people dependent upon the Federal Government. Like I say, a natural constituency for the Democratic Party, but it is a matter of great concern to me.

Are our colleagues bad people? No. They simply believe the Federal Government can do it better. There are some things the Federal Government can do better, such as defending our national security interests, which is what the Constitution expects the Federal Government to do.

But even there, under this administration, we are not doing as well as we should. Although I commend the President for deciding to send the people to

Afghanistan and for standing on these issues. Once he saw the intelligence and the other information, it infused reality into his decision-making process. I give him credit. I am one who believes he deserves great credit for the decision he made. But even in that decision, he had to be very careful how he characterized when we are going to leave. He did leave it flexible. In that alone, he deserves a lot of credit because he knows there may not be enough time to do all we have to do to create the well-trained police and security forces that are necessary to keep Afghanistan free and to keep the world from allowing the Taliban and al-Qaida to obtain nuclear weapons.

Well, that is another subject for another day. I wish to end by saying I don't believe anybody on the other side is an evil person or a person who doesn't believe they are acting in the best interest of the country, but I do not see how--I do not see how they can continue to push what they are trying to push, I think to the detriment of this country.

I yield the floor.

On the CHIP bill I can't remember what the exact number was but I think it was between 70 or 80 votes. It was a bipartisan bill. In fact, on the Finance Committee when I brought it up only two Senators voted against it. It was like 19 to 2.

Every Republican except two, and every Democrat voted for it.

That was unanimous. If I recall correctly, I think it was done through a unanimous consent.

Yes.

They were all bipartisan. That is what gets me, because people know--people such as myself, such as the senior Senator from Kansas--we are willing to work on it with them. We know we can't get everything we want. Our colleagues have different viewpoints than we do. But tell me that I am wrong--I know you can't--that the HELP Committee bill was done solely between a few people at the White House and the Kennedy staff, and basically a few Democrats. That was it. No Republicans.

The House bill, I wish to ask the Senator, does he know of any Republican who was asked to participate in helping to develop that monstrosity they call the House bill?

After they came up with it, but how about the Reid bill? Does the Senator know if any Republicans were involved, able to participate in that bill, after the discussion between the White House and Senator Reid and a few Democrats?

None were involved. After they get it they say we want to work with you. After they get it done in the ways that I don't think any Republican can support, then they will say, yes, we would like it to be bipartisan. Has the Senator seen any acceptance of amendments here on the floor?

That is right. One thing I appreciated very much about Senator Kennedy, as liberal as he was--he was the leading liberal lion in the Senate, in the whole Congress, in my opinion--he knew unless we could get together in a bipartisan way we could not get the job done. This involves one-sixth of the American economy; one-sixth. We are being told take it or leave it. That is what I call an arrogance of power.

I don't want to be mean to my colleagues, I think many of them are very sincere, but it is an arrogance of power to not deal with the other side and to not even talk to us about it until after you have done what you want to do. I have to say, this is the worst I have seen it in the whole 33 years I have been in the Senate.

It is a western tie. I thought I would wear it out of loudness today.

I believe we could craft a bill that would get almost 100 votes. I think we would at least get between 70 and 80 votes and probably more if we worked together to do it. I don't think there is any question we could do that.

Look, we all want prevention, we want maintenance, we all want to cover as many people as we possibly can, we all want to correct some of the deficiencies that are in these bills, we all want to take care of people with preexisting illnesses. I could go on and on. Those are things we could build upon in ways that would work.

This bill is not going to work very well. But we could build upon that, bipartisan-wise, and build a complete bill We Republicans would not get everything we want. But I think there are Democrats who believe we ought to use the principles of federalism, have 50 State laboratories out there, let them work on their own problems in accordance with their own demographics. I know Kansas is not New Jersey. Neither is Utah. And New Jersey is not Kansas or Utah, to pick three States. You can do that with any three States. But we know one thing, if we follow the principles of federalism--that is what we did in CHIP, and CHIP worked well by anybody's measure--if we follow the principles of federalism we would be able to look and pick and choose from the various States what works and what does not.

You would have the usually big Democratic States that probably wouldn't function no matter what you do. But even they would benefit. Even they would benefit from looking at the other States and saying will that work in our State. Frankly, that is what made this country great.

There are friends on the other side who do not agree with me on that but there are friends over there who do agree with me on that, as you can see, getting 70 or 80 votes on the CHIP bill. There were other bills we put through by unanimous consent, because people recognized they were well intentioned, well written, had bipartisan support and nobody wanted to vote against them.

That is right. When Senator Kennedy and I did the CHIP bill, as an illustration, we had to go up and down this country giving speeches everywhere, building constituencies, working very hard together. It is no secret, in the end it was not everything he wanted. It wasn't everything I wanted either. He wanted the Federal Government in control of it. I wanted the States to be in control of it. But in the end I happen to know, as one of the dearest friends of Senator Kennedy, with all the differences we had--and we had plenty, we fought each other most of the time, but in the end he was as proud of that bill as any bill he passed or he worked on--even though it was put together in a way that brought a great number of Republicans on board.

Frankly, that can be done here. I have no doubt it could be done here. I look at the distinguished Senator in the chair. He is one of the brightest guys in the Senate. He has a lot of experience in this area. I personally believe the people such as the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Kansas, myself--if we got together we could do things that our respective States would be proud of and would be pleased to work on--even though there would be some give and take, and that is what we need to do.

Look, I point out one more time, the HELP bill is totally Democratic, not one Republican, until they brought the bill to the committee. The House bill--totally Democratic, not one Republican was even asked to give input. And this bill, not one Republican. In fact, not many Democrats.

I made the point here a few minutes ago, most of the Democrats do not know what is in the bill that was submitted to the Congressional Budget Office. You heard the very competent minority--majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, say he did not know what was in the bill either. When the minority--excuse me, the majority; I have that in my mind, I think. If the majority whip didn't know, how in the world are we Republicans going to know? And how in the world are the rest of the Democrats going to know? These are things that worry me and bother me.

I believe they believed with President Obama's aura, with his strength in politics, with all of us wanting to help him and with their distinctive 60-person majority, that they could put over whatever they wanted to. This was their opportunity to go to a single-payer system-- or at least to move the whole system much farther toward a single-payer system than it even is today.

These things bother me a great deal. Frankly, I hope we can get our colleagues to sit down and work with us. I think both sides would have to give. Both sides would have to get together. But at least one-sixth of the American economy would be treated with respect rather than one side saying take it or leave it.