Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on Smithsonian Institution governance reform and a report by the Smithsonian's Independent Review Committee.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. President, Bob Barker has graced millions of living rooms with his warm presence and genuine manner. Sadly today airs his final episode hosting America's beloved ``The Price is Right'' on CBS, but today is appropriate to remember the impact this wonderful man had on all of us, as he became a piece of our history and a small part of our lives each day.

Bob Barker's name is synonymous with CBS's ``The Price is Right,'' which he began hosting on September 4, 1972. It ends today as the longest running daytime game show in television history. He holds a plethora of longevity records, including a record for holding a weekday TV job continuously for 50 years as of 2006, the oldest person to receive an MTV movie award for his role in the comedy ``Billy Madison,'' and he has hosted or appeared on a 5-day-a-week television program longer than anyone else in the history of television. Also on December 31, 2006, Bob Barker celebrated the anniversary of his 50th year on national television. He is truly a fixture in American culture and television legend. His grace and humor have truly contributed to his success, and will be missed greatly by his millions of loyal fans ranging from the young to the young at heart.

Bob Barker is also a strong advocate for animal rights, and brings that passion into his role as host of ``The Price is Right.'' He credits his love of animals and awareness to animal rights activism to his late wife Dorothy Jo. He continued the work in her memory. Bob insisted the show stop giving away fur coats as prizes, and formed the DJ&T Foundation that contributes millions of dollars to fund animal rescue and park facilities across the country. His passion for the cause has even brought him here to Washington, DC, where he spoke on Capitol Hill on the issue of animal rights.

Barker has been recognized for his success and talent by receiving 17 Emmy Awards and the Lifetime Achievement Award for Daytime Television in 1999. Barker has also had the

honor of being inducted into the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Hall of Fame. In March of 1998, to commemorate the five thousandth episode of ``The Price is Right,'' CBS dedicated the show's soundstage in his honor.

America will certainly miss being greeted by the smiling and vibrant face of Bob Barker each morning, however, his success in both his career and in life are indisputable. There is no doubt Bob Barker has positively impacted the lives of many, and on this day as we celebrate with Bob the airing of his final episode hosting ``The Price is Right,'' we should also extend our thanks to Bob for the many delightful years and countless memories he has granted us.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McConnell and 54 of our colleagues to introduce a joint resolution renewing the ban on all imports from Burma for another year.

Simply put, the ruling State Peace and Development Council--SPDC--has not taken the necessary actions to warrant a lifting of the sanctions at this time.

Indeed, Burma represents one of the most critical human rights situations in the world today.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the National League for Democracy, is confined to her home by orders of the military junta.

She has spent the better part of the past 17 years imprisoned or under house arrest and on May 25, 2003 her sentence was extended for another year.

There is no indication that the regime will free her anytime soon.

This is simply unacceptable. She should be released immediately and unconditionally and the regime should begin real and substantive national reconciliation talks with Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy--NLD.

The NLD, the winning party in Burma's last free elections in 1990 with 82 percent of the seats in parliament, is forbidden from participating in public life. For over 20 years, the military junta has been unwilling to take meaningful steps towards political reconciliation.

And let us not forget: 4 years ago government sponsored thugs attempted to assassinate Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy by attacking her motorcade in northern Burma.

Indeed, the human rights situation in Burma is deplorable and demands a clear, unified response from the international community: 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail; according to the U.N. Special Rapporteur, over 3,000 villages have been destroyed by the military junta; 70,000 child soldiers have been forcibly recruited; over 500,000 people are internally displaced in Burma today, and over 1 million people have fled Burma over the past two decades, destabilizing Burma's neighbors. Also, the practice of rape as a form of repression has been sanctioned by the Burmese military; use of forced labor is widespread; human trafficking is rampant; Burma is the world's second-largest opium producer after Afghanistan and increasingly a source of trafficking of synthetic narcotics.

Some may argue that while the human rights situation is indeed deplorable, sanctions are not the proper solution and we should try a new course.

I agree that sanctions are not a panacea for every foreign policy concern. I am disappointed that Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and we still have not realized our goal of a free and democratic Burma.

Yet now is not the time to lift the import ban on Burma. First, the military junta has not fulfilled any of the obligations of the ``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' that would allow a lifting of the ban. It has not made ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards: ending violations of internationally recognized human rights; releasing all political prisoners; allowing freedom of speech and press; allowing freedom of association; permitting the peaceful exercise of religion and; bringing to a conclusion an agreement between the SPDC and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic nationalities on the restoration of a democratic government.

If we were to allow the import ban to expire, we would reward the military junta for its inaction, its failure to fulfill these basic obligations, and its continued brutal crackdown on the human rights of the citizens of Burma.

We simply cannot afford to send that message to those who bravely stand up to the SPDC and reject their abuses.

I remind my colleagues that we are not voting to enact the import ban in perpetuity.

We are renewing it for one more year and we will have another opportunity to review its effectiveness next year.

Second, Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition continue to support the import ban.

They recognize that it is not directed at the people of Burma, but at the military junta that dominates economic and political activity in their country and denies them their rights.

Third, we are seeing progress in the international community in putting additional pressure on Burma.

In a recent letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of state--including former Filipino president Corazon Aquino, former Czech president Vaclav Havel, former British prime minister John Major and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush--called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi.

They correctly noted that ``Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, nonviolent dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.''

The calls for Suu Kyi's release are also coming from Burma's neighbors.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations--ASEAN--now recognizes that Burma's actions are not an ``internal matter'' but a significant threat to peace and stability in the region.

At a meeting of senior diplomats last month, ASEAN made a clear call for Aung San Suu Kyi's release.

As Philippine foreign under secretary Erlinda Basilio said: ``It's a consensus that we want to see her early release.''

An editorial in the Jakarta Post recently commented that the regime's refusal to heed these calls ``shows its complete disregard for the growing values of ASEAN.'' That is from the Jakarta Post, May 29, 2007.

We are also seeing progress at the United Nations. In January, for the first time, the United Nations debated a binding, non-punitive resolution on Burma.

Among other things that resolution called on the military junta:

. . . to take concrete steps to allow full freedom of

expression, association, and movement by unconditionally

releasing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners,

lifting all constraints on all political leaders and

citizens, and allowing the National League for Democracy

(NLD) and other political parties to operate freely.

While nine countries voted in favor of the resolution, I am extremely disappointed that China and Russia exercised their veto.

A report by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and retired archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa--``Threat to Peace: A Call for the U.N. Security Council to Act on Burma''--confirms the need for U.N. intervention. It details how the situation in Burma fulfills each of the criteria used for past intervention by the Security Council: overthrow of an elected government; armed conflicts with ethnic minorities; widespread human rights violations; outflow of refugees-- over 700,000; and drug production and trafficking and the spread of

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 20, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on S. 1285, the ``Fair Elections Now Act,'' to reform the finance of Senate elections, and on the high cost of broadcasting campaign advertisements.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss one of the provisions of this Energy bill that is now before the Senate. This is the provision that would increase the fuel efficiency of our Nation's fleet of vehicles. These provisions were approved by the Commerce Committee with substantial bipartisan support. They are known as the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act.

I come to the floor in place of Chairman Inouye, who is ill today and has asked me if I would mind describing the provisions of this legislation, and, of course, I am delighted to do that. The legislation is supported by a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Stevens, Snowe, Dorgan, Collins, Durbin, Boxer, Cantwell, Carper, Klobuchar, and Kerry.

The basic premise of the legislation is to increase the fuel economy of cars, SUVs, and light trucks by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years-- that is the ``10 over 10''--and to do this by 2020. But the bill does do more than that. It continues beyond 2020 and increases fuel efficiency by 4 percent a year through 2030. This is with the addition of the Dorgan legislation which the Commerce Committee added to Senator Snowe's, Senator Inouye's and my 10-over-10 bill in the Commerce Committee.

Some would have liked this legislation to go further, perhaps to 40 miles per gallon or more. Others do not want any significant increases. But I think this legislation strikes the right balance, and it sets forward a significant, achievable standard for the future.

It would be the first major fuel efficiency increase in the past 25 years. Can you believe it? With all the talk and all the discussion in the past 25 years, nothing has been done to increase fuel efficiency. I have been working on this legislation in one form or another--first, it was with Senator Snowe as an SUV loophole closer. We have been doing this for more than a decade now.

But the simple truth is that today the technology exists to accomplish the goals of this legislation. It can be done without reducing safety and with significant benefit to our economy and our environment. It does so in a way that gives auto manufacturers the flexibility and the time they need. I hope they listen to this because I think they have a misimpression of the bill. This is not according to just us, but it is according to the experts--the National Academy of Sciences, the International Council on Clean Transportation, and experts at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. So it is time to break the logjam.

We all know our Nation faces stark energy challenges. Gas prices have risen to above $3 a gallon--more than doubling in the past 5 years. Global warming is real, it is happening, and it is having an impact on the world around us. The United States needs to address the transportation sector's emissions of carbon dioxide. Transportation, in 2004, accounted for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. With a war in Iraq and tense relations with Iran, we need to move away from our dependence on foreign oil. Through this legislation, we believe we can have a significant impact in each of those areas.

By 2025, increases for cars and light-duty trucks would save 2.1 million barrels of oil per day. That is nearly the amount of oil imported daily from the Persian Gulf, so it would be a savings, by 2025, of about what we import each day now. That is consequential. It would reduce carbon dioxide emissions--which is the primary global warming gas--18 percent from anticipated levels in 2025. That is the equivalent of taking 60 million cars off the road in a year. And--and this is a big ``and''--it would save the consumer, the driver, the family, a net $69 billion at the gas pump. That is based on a $3.08 a gallon gas price. That is the recent average price nationwide. So with gas costing $3.08 a gallon, the net consumer savings--if this bill were in place--would be $69 billion. This would mean, if you go to the individual or the individual family, it is a savings of $700 to $1,000 a year for families with children, depending on the price of gas. So the time has come to act.

Now, here is what the measure would do. I hope people will listen. It would set achievable fuel economy standards for all vehicles, increasing fleetwide average fuel economy for all cars, SUVs, and trucks by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years--or from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020. So 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and it is 2007 today. It would provide for an additional 4-percent annual increase after that until 2030. It would require the Department of Transportation to improve the fuel economy of medium and heavy-duty trucks over a 20-year period--not tomorrow, not today but over a 20- year period--for the first time in history addressing this particular area of concern.

America, do something about your heavy trucks, and over the next 20 years try to see if you can't make them more fuel efficient.

The key to this bill is it changes the way automakers are allowed to meet these standards in fairly substantial ways. I wish to describe them.

The provision provides the time and the flexibility needed for automakers, we believe, to meet these standards. This is where Detroit does not listen. We believe--we sincerely believe--it creates a level playing field for all automakers. Let me describe how.

Under the existing CAFE system, each automaker must meet a 27.5 miles-per-gallon standard for their particular fleet of cars. This current system disadvantages American companies that build larger cars with lower gas mileage. So we admit the present system disadvantages American automobile makers.

But under the newly proposed system contained in this bill, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration would have broad discretion to divide vehicles into classes based on their attributes, such as size. So a small car in a small-car class is evaluated against other small cars--not a small car evaluated against a Navigator or a Cadillac but class-by-class evaluations. This requirement would no longer apply to each automaker. This is additional flexibility. Different automakers will meet different standards, depending upon the mix of cars they choose to make.

From 2011 to 2019, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible

and ratchet these standards up at a reasonable rate.

By 2020, the total average must meet the 35 miles per gallon--the total average. Some cars will be below it, and some will be above it-- as long as the total average meets the standard. This gives Detroit the flexibility they say they need. I do not know why they will not understand it.

This effectively gives the automakers 13 years to get the job done, and it means fuel economy will increase across all classes--from the smallest sedans to the largest SUVs. It may be different by the class, but, nonetheless, it would increase, so that the average fuel economy would be 35 miles per gallon. At the same time, the measure establishes a credit trading program under the direction of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, known as NHTSA. NHTSA would design, run, and operate this credit trading program.

The provision was strongly recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in 2002. It would give an automaker a financial incentive to exceed the standards. If it does, it could sell credits to another automaker and profit from having a more fuel-efficient fleet. So that an automaker that makes a car that attains 37 miles a gallon can sell that differential to someone who cannot quite make it.

It would also allow the banking of these credits for up to 5 years-- insurance if a company falls below the standard in a later year. If an automaker cannot meet the standards in a given year, they can purchase these credits, use bank credits, or borrow from projected surpluses from future years. So the bottom line is this is a practical, workable system which ensures substantial increases in fuel efficiency. Quite frankly, it is a major improvement over the current system, which has a much more rigid approach.

I want to say something. In all the time I have been working on this legislation, nobody from the automaker community has ever come to me to say: Look, we like this, but we don't like this. If you just changed it this way, it would appeal to us.

We have bent over backward to try to accommodate a bill to meet what for the past years--every time this comes up on the floor, I hear them argue: You can't evaluate small cars against big cars. Well, we don't do that in this bill.

Another thing we have done--and this was pursuant to Senator Stevens' request and interest in the committee--this measure provides an off- ramp in 2020 in the unlikely event that there are substantial unforeseen costs.

The measure would give NHTSA the authority to set a standard lower or higher than the 35 miles per gallon in 2020. The authority could be invoked only if a thorough review of the costs of putting new technologies in our automotive fleet exceeds the agency's best estimate of the value to the Nation of setting the standard at this level. So that is the off-ramp. There can be an evaluation, a kind of cost- benefit look at the situation, and there would have to be clear and convincing evidence that the costs exceed the benefits. Obviously, we wanted to make it somewhat difficult--not a rollover so everybody could get out of it--somewhat difficult.

NHTSA would have to take into consideration billions of dollars in fuel savings, national security implications of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the effect of global warming and air pollution, and, on the other side of the scale, additional costs to manufacturers and consumers. Given all of the clear and meaningful benefits, we believe automakers can and will be able to meet these standards, actually with little difficulty, but the provisions give NHTSA discretion in the event it becomes clear automakers cannot meet the standards down the road.

So that is what the bill does. The fact is, this legislation is past due. Our Nation has seen gas prices skyrocket over the past 5 years. It now costs $50, $60, or $70 to fill up a tank with gas. In my State of California, this is a big deal. People often have to use at least 2 tankfuls of gasoline, so instead of a tank at $20, if it is a tank at $70, instead of 4 times 20, which is $80, it is 4 times $70, just to drive to work.

In the long term, a key to reducing gas prices is to reduce demand for gasoline. By increasing fuel efficiency, we can reduce consumption and thereby reduce demand. Americans understand this. That is why, in poll after poll, the American people overwhelmingly support increased fuel efficiency. A poll published in April of this year by the New York Times and CBS shows that more than 90 percent of Americans favor legislation for acquiring more fuel efficient vehicles. Ninety percent. That is amazing. People want more fuel-efficient vehicles. A poll commissioned by the National Environmental Trust shows that more than 80 percent of truck owners favor higher fuel economy standards. That was done between April 28 and May 1 of this year. These results are consistent all across ideologic and geographic divides. Simply put, Americans by large majorities want improved mileage on their automobiles.

Now, some question whether the standards in this legislation are achievable. You have only to look at what other nations are doing to see that, in fact, they are. Canada has proposed raising its fuel economy standard to 32 miles per gallon by 2010--32 miles per gallon by 2010. Australia's fuel efficiency averages 29 miles per gallon and is expected to rise to 34 miles per gallon by 2010. Europe's fuel efficiency currently exceeds 40 miles per gallon, and that is expected to increase over the next few years. Japan's fuel efficiency averages 46.3 miles per gallon and is expected to rise to 48 miles per gallon by 2010. Even China will have a new vehicle fleet averaging 37 miles per gallon--not in 10 years, not in 5 years, but next year. So these standards have to be met by American automobile manufacturers manufacturing in China next year. They will have to meet 37 miles per gallon.

In the United States, it is 25 miles per gallon. This is really unacceptable. These higher standards are being met abroad by the same automakers who claim it is impossible to do it here in the United States. This includes BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Porsche, Volkswagen, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota. All have agreed to push fuel economy well above 40 miles per gallon in Europe but say they cannot achieve these standards in the United States. Does that make sense to anybody in this body? I think not. Does it make sense to anyone in America? I think not.

Now, also, the simple truth is that the technology exists to achieve a 35-mile-per-gallon standard by 2020. Existing technology can do it. So as Detroit complains it can't do this or it can't do that, the National Academy of Sciences says it can.

This is what they tell us:

We can increase the fuel economy--

This is what they say can be done, the National Academy of Sciences--

of mid-sized SUVs to 34 miles per gallon with existing

technology, large cars to 39 miles per gallon with existing

technology, minivans to nearly 37 miles per gallon with

existing technology, and large pickups to nearly 30 miles per

gallon with existing technology. When you average all of this

together, you will find that the fleet could achieve 37 miles

per gallon, 2 miles more than this measure envisions.

This is a conservative estimate. The National Academy of Sciences study measured cost-effectiveness based on $1.50 per gallon as opposed to today's $3 per gallon. So now you can see how conservative it is. The academy didn't consider hybrids and other emerging technologies such as the popular Toyota Prius, just the standard American automobiles. So it is quite possible that even greater increases in fuel economy could be achieved.

Now, how can this all be done? By using existing technology and simple design improvements. Let me give my colleagues some of the things for which the technology already exists: better aerodynamics, alternater improvements, engine friction reduction, using more efficient transmissions, electric power steering, electric water pump, reduced engine friction, and using only engine cylinders that are necessary. These changes still could be made to great effect.

A 2006 study by the Canadian Government concluded that the cost- effective technologies identified by the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report remain available and more cost-effective than ever. Our current fleet is more powerful, accelerates more quickly, and brakes more effectively. But with all of these advances, there is one critical design feature we have not improved at all in 25 years: Today's cars get the lowest number of miles to the

gallon since 1988. That is 20 years ago--the lowest number of miles to the gallon since 1988. This has to change.

I would say to all of those who want to fight this because they think it is too strong and because Detroit objects to it that the handwriting has been on the wall for a long time and Detroit has not come in and made a suggestion. All of this scientific evidence indicates that Detroit can meet these standards, that the technology exists to meet these standards, that they are doing it in other countries but for some reason they have buffaloed the Congress of the United States into believing you can do it in China, you can do it in Europe, but you can't do it in the greatest economic power on Earth--the United States of America.

Some also say we can't increase fuel economy without reducing safety, but this also is simply not true. A recent study by groups, including the International Council on Clean Transportation, has concluded that no tradeoff--no tradeoff--is required between fuel economy and vehicle safety. The conclusion of this report is consistent with the conclusion of numerous other studies. Let me quote directly from the report:

Vehicle fuel economy can be increased without affecting

safety, and vice versa.

That is on page 2 of their report.

Advanced materials allow vehicles to be both bigger and

lighter, providing multiple ways to improve safety and fuel

economy without sacrificing functionality. Fuel economy can

be dramatically improved without compromising safety. Safety

can be bolstered without sacrificing fuel economy.

That is on page 17 of their study.

There is technology in place today to be used to increase safety without sacrificing fuel economy. Let me just give my colleagues a few examples: seatbelt reminders, window curtain airbags, lower bumpers, electronic stability control, improved body structure, seatbelts that tighten if a vehicle were to roll over. It seems to me that is such a simple thing, that if automobile manufacturers wanted to improve safety, they would do that.

We saw what happened to a former colleague of ours who was not wearing a seatbelt. Nobody can challenge that seatbelts don't make one of the biggest safety improvements in the history of the automobile. When the Governor's crash took place, everybody else essentially was OK in the car except for Governor Corzine, and he didn't have his seatbelt on. If anything is clear evidence of the safety of seatbelts, this is it. So safety can be improved without an effect on fuel economy.

This legislation includes a provision that will help improve safety. It directs the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to issue a rule that seeks to reduce incompatibility between SUVs and passenger vehicles. This could be done through measures which ensure that bumpers hit bumpers in the event of an accident. I just saw this coming to work today, where a Sedan had rear-ended an SUV, and you saw the difference because of the inequality of the bumpers. This happened just a few blocks away.

In response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Ford assembly plant in Richmond, CA, switched from making cars to assembling Jeeps, tanks, and armored cars. By July 1942, just 6 months after the bombing, the Richmond Tank Depot and the women who worked there were supplying our Armed Forces with the best military hardware in the world.

Technology, paired with American ingenuity and hard work, helped us prevail in that struggle and has been a key ingredient of America's unprecedented wealth and security.

Today, we face a much different threat. It is the threat of our Nation's addiction to fossil fuels--to oil--and what that will do to our economy, to our environment, and to our foreign policy if we don't change our ways.

These are serious questions and they deserve a serious response. Increasing fuel economy is not a silver bullet. I am the first one to say that. It won't solve problems by itself. However, it is a major piece of the puzzle. We have the best universities in the world, the strongest financial system, and the best workers. We can do this. We can make these improvements. We can lead the way. We have only to find the political will.

I am very proud the bill before us now contains this legislation. I believe, as I have tried to describe--and I apologize for the length of this statement--that it is compatible with the needs of Detroit; that the legislation is drafted to respond to those needs by the class-to- class comparison, to avoid what always has been in every discussion on this floor the greatest threat to Detroit, which is to compare a small car to a large car and, therefore, make it difficult for them to manufacture large cars. This will not do that. I hope it will be voted on.

I very much thank the Chair. I know Senator Snowe was going to come to the floor and, hopefully, she will.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to ask what the time allocation is because I wish to speak on the Democratic side.

Mr. President, if I might respond to that. Of course I want to cooperate, but I wish to use the 20 minutes of Democratic time. I would be prepared to extend the time for morning business if the Senators would agree to that.

Perhaps there could be a unanimous consent agreement that Senator Specter is allowed 10 minutes, and I would be allowed the 20 minutes of Democratic time, requiring an extension of 10 minutes of morning business.

If I may, Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, say my suggestion is we extend the time of morning business to accommodate the Senator's 10 minutes and my 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I don't often differ with the distinguished ranking member. But I came to the floor as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee now for 15 years and as one who takes no particular pleasure in what I am about to say. I urge a ``yes'' vote on cloture. I want to say why.

The Department of Justice is one of the country's most important departments. It has a budget of $24 billion and over 100,000 employees. It is charged with combating terrorism, fighting violent crime, stopping drug trafficking, upholding civil rights, and enforcing civil liberties. It houses key agencies, including the FBI, DEA, the Bureau of Prisons, the Marshals Service, and U.S. Attorney's Offices.

As a leader of the Department, the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for the people of this Nation. He is the chief lawyer of the United States. He runs a big department. He must be a strong manager who can direct the day-to-day operations and an independent leader with an unyielding commitment to the law, who is willing to stand up against, yes, even the President, if necessary. He must lead by example, upholding the highest ethical standards.

I think President Lincoln's Attorney General put the challenge on the map when he said this:

The office I hold is not properly political, but strictly

legal, and it is my duty above all other ministers of state

to uphold the law and to resist all encroachments from

whatever quarter.

That is the job of the U.S. Attorney General. The subject before us today is the fact that, for many of us, this Attorney General has not lived up to this standard, and he has lost our confidence. Unfortunately, the Attorney General has failed to meet the challenges during his tenure.

The Department of Justice has become highly politicized in its hiring and firing--I hope to lay that out--and I believe in many of the legal opinions it issues as well. In many respects, it is today an extension of the White House, rather than the scrupulous, independent enforcer of Federal law as suggested by President Lincoln's Attorney General.

Through the investigation into the hiring and firing of at least 9 U.S. attorneys, we have heard Attorney General Gonzales give vague and unconvincing responses in critical areas about his Department's performance.

The Attorney General testified that he does not know who selected the various U.S. attorneys to be fired; therefore, he does not know why they were fired. Can you believe that? He testified that the firings were based on a ``process of consulting with senior leadership in the Department.'' However, every single one of the Department of Justice's senior officials who have testified has stated under oath that they did not place a U.S. attorney on the termination list, with one exception-- Kevin Ryan of California. This includes Kyle Sampson, the Attorney General's Chief of Staff; James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General; Paul McNulty, Deputy Attorney General; Mike Elston, Paul McNulty's Chief of Staff; Monica Goodling, White House Liaison; Bill Mercer, Associate Attorney General; Mike Battle, Director of the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys; and David Margolis, Associate Deputy Attorney General. They have all said they did not add names to the list of those to be fired. To this day, we have been unable to find out who put in place the unprecedented targeted program to fire several U.S. attorneys midterm, at one time, and who made the decision to place these attorneys on that firing list.

We also learned that an internal order, entitled ``Delegation of Certain Personnel Decisions to the Chief of Staff,'' that was issued March 1, 2006--in that order, the Attorney General designated his role in hiring and firing certain senior officials in the Department of Justice to his Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, and a young, 33-year-old former researcher for the Republican National Committee, Monica Goodling. I must say that I find this a major abdication of the duty of a leader. In fact, according to internal memos, the Attorney General was going to completely abdicate his role, until the Office of Legal Counsel stepped in, saying he must at least be consulted in the process.

In a memo dated February 24, 2006, Paul Corts, Assistant Attorney General for Administration, wrote this:

The Office of Legal Counsel advises that permitting the

Attorney General's delegates to approve appointments (or

removals) of constitutionally ``inferior officers''. . .

would be inconsistent with the [Excepting Clause in the

Constitution]. The Office of Legal Counsel recommends that

the delegates exercising the authority of this delegation

submit appointments or removals to the Attorney General.

Taken together, the most favorable interpretation of these various actions is that the Attorney General has clearly sought to avoid these key responsibilities.

Unfortunately, information has come to light that demonstrates that the problems are not limited to poor management. Rather, the Department's reputation, independence, and credibility have been put in serious question.

Mr. Gonzales has stated that he believes the Attorney General wears ``two hats''--one as a member of the President's staff and another as the Nation's top law enforcement officer. How does this compare with what I just read from Abraham Lincoln's Attorney General? Answer: It does not.

It is this perspective which I believe has led the Attorney General to treat

the Department of Justice as a political arm of the White House rather than as the independent law enforcement agency it should be. For example, the committee's investigation has shown that seven of the nine U.S. attorneys who were fired were not fired for so-called ``performance reasons'' at all, as stated. In fact, when reviewing the six evaluation and review staff reports, which are called the EARS reports, of the fired U.S. attorneys, all were given strong, positive performance evaluations. Here are some examples:

Bud Cummins:

United States Attorney Cummins was very competent and

highly regarded by the Federal judiciary, law enforcement,

and the civil client agencies.

Despite this review, Mr. Cummins was fired in June of 2006.

Carol Lam:

U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was an effective manager and a

respected leader in the District . . . The United States

Attorney committed significant prosecutorial resources to the

felony immigration and border crime cases.

Despite this review, Mrs. Lam was fired on December 7, 2006, ostensibly for the very reason that the EARS report found she had done a good job.

David Iglesias:

This U.S. Attorney had well-conceived strategic plans that

complied with Department priorities and reflected the needs

of the District overall. The U.S. Attorney effectively

managed complaints, detention decisions, and pretrial

practices.

Despite this review, Mr. Iglesias was fired on December 7, 2006.

Dan Bogden:

U.S. Attorney Bogden was actively involved in the day-to-

day management of the U.S. Attorney's office, had established

an excellent management team, and had established appropriate

priority programs that support Department initiatives.

Despite this review, Mr. Bogden was fired on December 7, 2006.

Paul Charlton:

U.S. Attorney Charlton also made his goals and expectations

clear to his staff. . . .The U.S. Attorney's office

prosecuted more immigration violations than any other

district.

Despite this review, Mr. Charlton was fired December 7, 2006.

John McKay:

McKay is an effective, well-regarded, and capable leader of

the [U.S. Attorney's office] and the District's law

enforcement community.

Despite this review, Mr. McKay was fired on December 7, 2006.

The Department did not turn over the EARS reports for the two U.S. attorneys who were said to have performance concerns and who were not identified until late in the process--Margaret Chiara and Kevin Ryan.

Since the initial cause for the firing, performance was clearly debunked by these reports. It now appears that these 6 U.S. attorneys were fired because they upset the political arm of the White House.

For example, David Iglesias, by all accounts a rising star, was only placed on the list to be fired after the President and Karl Rove called the Attorney General to pass along complaints.

Specifically, Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, testified on March 29, 2007, that:

I do remember learning, I believe, from the Attorney

General that he had received a complaint from Karl Rove about

U.S. Attorneys in three jurisdictions, including New Mexico,

and the substance of the complaint was that those U.S.

Attorneys weren't pursuing voter fraud cases aggressively

enough.

Mr. Sampson went on to testify that he also remembered that:

Just a week before I left the Department in March, I

remember the Attorney General telling me that he had had a

meeting with the President in October sometime. . . . I

remember the Attorney General saying, ``You know, I remember

the President in that meeting we had in October telling me

that [there were] concerns about Iglesias.''

In addition, the committee's investigation has shown that many of the U.S. attorneys who were fired, or put on a list to be fired, were handling contentious election-related cases, including Todd Graves, former U.S. attorney in Missouri, who recently revealed that he, too, was forced to resign after he had refused to support a case against the Democratic secretary of state in Missouri, alleging that Missouri was violating Federal law for failing to purge voter rolls--that is despite the rules of the Department urging that no case involving election practices be brought prior to an election; John McKay, former U.S. attorney in Washington, fired, it appears, because he refused to bring a case during the hotly contested gubernatorial race against essentially the Democratic candidate; David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who, it appears, was fired because he refused to bring a case alleging voter fraud prior to the election; Tom Hefflefinger, former U.S. attorney in Minnesota, who was put on a list to be fired when he was pushing for an investigation into voter discrimination against Native Americans; Steve Buskupic, U.S. attorney in Wisconsin, who was put on a list to be fired, and his district was the focus of a document sent over from the White House for investigation that provided information on Milwaukee voting trends.

These are just examples of U.S. attorneys who were fired or considered to be fired because of their involvement in election fraud cases. Other U.S. attorneys who were fired were involved with sensitive public corruption cases.

The congressional investigation has also uncovered that political considerations were being taken into account with regard to hiring and firing decisions for career employees at the Department and the prestigious Honors Program. Now, that is a no-no.

Monica Goodling, a young, inexperienced lawyer, 33 years old, was named White House Liaison at the Department of Justice, and in that role she was given the authority to hire and fire personnel for many critical positions at the Department.

On May 23, 2007, Ms. Goodling testified that ``I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions.''

This is a 33-year-old making these decisions. Where was the Attorney General?

The Congress has also discovered that political appointees directed changes to be made to the performance evaluations of career staff and overrode career attorneys' recommendations regarding which cases to pursue or not pursue.

For example, in testimony before the House, Joe Rich, who worked at DOJ's Civil Rights Division for 37 years, testified that he was ``ordered to change the standard performance evaluations of attorneys under my supervision to include critical comments of those who had made recommendations that were counter to the political will of the front office and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.''

What does this do to the credibility of the Department of Justice of the United States?

In the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing last week, Brad Schlozman testified that ``on a number of occasions, I believe I did order [Joe Rich to change performance evaluations.]''

There you have it, the politicization of the Department of Justice.

Sharon Eubanks, lead attorney for the Department of Justice on the tobacco cases, has stated that in June 2005, she was pressured to ask for lesser penalties against the tobacco companies. She said:

At first, the administration officials attempted to get the

litigation team and me and my staff to agree to lower the

amount, but there was no basis for doing that, and we

refused. And finally, after a number of very heated

discussions, I said, ``You write it and I'll say it.''

What a terrible comment about some of the biggest cases ever made in the history of the United States.

Each of these facts on its own is disconcerting, but taken together, they show a department being run based on politics and not on law.

I also believe the Attorney General has compromised important legal principles by taking positions and espousing opinions that are outside the mainstream of legal thought. For example, the Attorney General testified on January 18, 2007, that habeas corpus, the right to challenge one's imprisonment, is not protected by the Constitution. Here is what the Attorney General said:

There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.

There is a prohibition against taking it away . . . I meant

by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say ``Every

individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby

granted or assured the right to habeas.''

He has also pushed to narrow the definition of torture and changed to whom the Geneva Convention applies. In the January 2002 memo he wrote:

In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's

strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and

renders quaint some of its provisions.

And when it comes to Guantanamo, Attorney General Gonzales has expressed strong objections to closing the detention facility and moving detainees to the United States.

The New York Times reported of March 22 of this year that Mr. Gates argued to close Guantanamo. But according to administration officials-- this is the newspaper only:

Mr. Gates's arguments were rejected after Attorney General

Gonzales and some other Government lawyers expressed strong

objections to moving detainees to the United States, a stance

that was backed by the Office of the Vice President.

And despite the fact that the U.S. Code states ``the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act shall be the exclusive means'' by which electronic surveillance may be conducted, the Attorney General has argued that the language used in the authorization for use of military force implicitly authorized the President to exercise powers, ``including the collection of enemy intelligence.''

In his prepared testimony from January 2006, he stated:

The Supreme Court confirmed that the expansive language of

the resolution--``all necessary and appropriate force''--

ensures that the congressional authorization extends to

traditional incidents of waging war . . . [and] the use of

communications intelligence to prevent enemy attacks is a

fundamental and well-accepted incident of military force.

He is thereby saying that Guantanamo is a creature of this and, therefore, legal. I don't agree with that assessment.

I believe each of these legal opinions has had dramatic negative consequences, including negatively impacting America's relationship with most countries abroad.

Finally, and perhaps most disturbing, the Senate has heard testimony from Deputy Attorney General James Comey that calls into question the Attorney General's character and integrity.

Mr. Comey testified about the conversation in the intensive care unit of George Washington University Hospital where he witnessed then-White House Counsel Gonzales ``trying to take advantage of a very sick man'' to reverse a judgment that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was illegal.

The testimony--his testimony, Comey's testimony--raised questions about actions that are contrary to the ethical standards lawyers are required to uphold.

Mr. Comey's testimony stands in sharp contrast to the statements made by Mr. Gonzales to the Senate about this incident.

In response to Senators' questions on February 6, 2006, the Attorney General left the impression that any reports of disagreement within the administration about the surveillance program were either inaccurate or in reference to some other program or issue.

He said:

There has not been any serious disagreement [about the

program] . . . The point I want to make is that, to my

knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program

that we are talking about today.

That was under oath, Mr. President, before us. He didn't tell us about this. He didn't tell us that he went, as White House Counsel, to a critically ill man's intensive care unit bed and tried to reverse a decision that the Acting Attorney General was making. It wasn't until Mr. Comey came forward and told us about it did we know.

What do I conclude? Each of these issues is serious on its own and each would raise serious questions about the qualifications and service of this Attorney General. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcing the law and protecting all Americans' rights and security. The Attorney General must enforce the law without fear or favor to its political ramifications. He must act independently and pursue justice wherever it may lead, and without compromise. He must uphold the highest ethical standards.

Let me quote again from President Lincoln's Attorney General:

[t]he office I hold is not properly political, but strictly

legal; and it is my duty, above all other ministers of State,

to uphold the law and to resist all encroachments from

whatever quarter. . . .

This is what the Attorney General should be. That is why I am going to support the motion to close off debate and support the resolution.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wanted to say a few words because for me, this is a very sad day. I had hoped the outcome would be very different. I too want to thank my colleagues.

Earlier this evening, I happened to listen to the gray-haired Senator from Massachusetts speak and I think he probably spoke for an hour without a note. It was a lesson in immigration and a lesson on this bill. I think he knows more and has worked harder and worked longer-- not months, but decades--on these issues. So, Ted Kennedy, I want you to know I have the deepest respect and feeling for you, and I am so sorry this day ended the way it did.

But to my other colleagues: Senator Kyl, Senator Martinez, who is here, Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, Senator Specter, Senator Graham, all of those people who came to the hot rooms and sat around a table and put forward something they hoped could be bipartisan and could pass, I think we

all know the fact is that any immigration bill has to get 60 votes. Therefore, it is not going to be a Democratic immigration bill and it is not going to be a Republican immigration bill; it is going to be a bipartisan bill.

Having said that, when you deal with one word, which is ``comprehensive,'' which means all encompassing, you have to deal with a system that is huge. A visa system by the millions, a broken border, interior enforcement, employer sanctions, all of those things you need to do to fix a system that has existed are broken.

Someone said earlier today: What we have now today in America is effectively amnesty, because people know you can't pick up and deport 12 million people. You can't hold 12 million people. Therefore, what develops is a kind of subterranean, fearful culture that never becomes healthy and part of the main culture of America, and it is so too bad, because it doesn't have to be that way. I think those of us who see that, who looked at the comprehensive picture, who struggled between a Democratic ideology and a Republican ideology and to put those things together that we could put together in virtually every area of immigration reform, found that indeed it was a difficult task. We also found another thing: that there are very strong feelings in this country; and secondly, this bill was misunderstood from the very day it was brought out on the floor. In many different ways, it was misreported. It is still being misreported to this very day.

People never have understood the complexities of the bill. For example, if you sunset the point system after 5 years, you essentially say that agricultural workers can't get green cards because they have to wait for 8 years, or Z visas can't get green cards because you have to wait for 8 years. The agreement was that in exchange for being able to bring people out of the shadows, to put them through the hoops of becoming legal--not amnesty--oh, and I must tell my colleagues, my hair goes up every time somebody calls it amnesty, because there are all kinds of hoops they must jump through, and they must show a dedication to the country, and they must work and they must pay a fine, and they must learn the language, and they have to do this over a substantial period of time. They have to work to hold their visa. There is a probationary period. They have to submit documents. Some people thought it was too strong, but the fact is, we had a workable program. The exchange for the Republicans for doing that was two things: the guest worker program, and 8 years down the pike, 8 years down, changing the family basis to a nuclear family for green cards--a nuclear family being a mother, a father, and minor children, with additional green cards to move people faster through, with hardship green cards where there was a hardship. I wish to share this with the Senator from Florida, and other Senators who are here, that with every amendment put on the floor, it drove the sides not closer together but further apart. I watched as we sat here late last night. I saw that as the discussion of amendments went on, we lost Members. It was unfortunate because much of it was not on correct information.

I hope people will take a look at this bill. There may be some decision made that comprehensive, all inclusive is too much to tackle in one bill, that perhaps we should do parts of this bill at a time. This has been a very hard time for those of us who believe we had a product that had a chance to stand the test of time. We have a failing system out there today. Even if we got 25 percent better, it would be better than it is today. We could offer hope for people. We could see they are put in a constructive venue. We could see that enforcement is what it should be. We would put the money into the guarantee of the enforcement. We would use modern electronics to improve employer sanctions. Everybody would have an identification card. We have all these people in this country and we don't know who they are. What kind of a national security risk is that? Answer: It is a big one. We have people coming across all the time. This is a way to know who everybody is in the United States.

So there were so many things in this bill that were good. Sure, there are things I don't like and that Senator Durbin didn't like and that Mel Martinez didn't like and Senator Salazar didn't like and a lot Jeff Sessions didn't like. There were even things Ted Kennedy didn't like. But the point is we have a system that is not functional and that is serving no purpose and is using taxpayer dollars without producing the kinds of efficiencies it should. This is what we tried to solve in this bill.

I thought it was a good bill. I thought we could, in conference, work out some of the problems. I guess my observation of the evening is: Is comprehensive too much? Secondly, do people not want a bill so much that they are going to put amendments on this floor that don't bring people together, only divide them further?

In terms of deal breakers--my last point--there was one on each side. We survived that. There was one for each side. Yet there was nothing that could not be remedied in a conference. The achievements, I thought, would have been so strong and our situation so much improved. I hope people will read the bill, look at it, understand how these visa programs would work, understand how the security in this country would be improved by passing it, understand how we can--I have always believed we could control our borders. If we have the will, there will be a way. This was the will and the way to do that.

So it is a dark day for me and a dark evening because a lot of work went into this. I don't think we should give up. I think we should come back to fight another day. I know we will. To everybody, beginning with Ted, Ken, Mel, Dick, and for those Republicans who had the courage in particular to vote yes on cloture, I am very grateful. I think if there were a few more of you, we may have been able to do this tonight. We will come back. I thank everybody.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Lugar, Senator Dodd, and Senator Hagel to introduce a resolution calling for a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Our resolution reaffirms the Senate's commitment to a true and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the establishment of two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, and with recognized borders; denounces the use of violence and terror and reaffirms our unwavering commitment to Israel's security; calls on President Bush to pursue a robust diplomatic effort to engage the Israelis and Palestinians, reinvigorate negotiations, and make a two-state settlement a top priority; urges President Bush to consider appointing a high-level Special Envoy for Middle East Peace; calls on the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce and end all terror and incitement, and accept past agreements and obligations with Israel; calls on moderate Arab states in the region to intensify their diplomatic efforts toward a two-state solution and welcomes the Arab League Peace Initiative, and; calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to embrace efforts to achieve peace and refrain from taking any actions that would prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations.

Senator Baucus, Senator Byrd, Senator Whitehouse and Senator Sununu have also joined us as original cosponsors.

We are this week marking the the 40th anniversary of the start of the Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Arab states which lasted from June 5 to June 10, 1967. Israel's stunning triumph in that conflict, when its very existence was at stake, sent a powerful and unambiguous message to its neighbors and the international community that the existence of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East was a fact that could not be denied.

Since then, Israel, with the support and active engagement of the United States, has signed peace agreements with two of its adversaries from that war, first with Egypt in 1979 and then with Jordan in 1994.

Both treaties greatly enhanced Israel's security and brought hope to its people.

Yet a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement has remained elusive, resulting in the loss of numerous innocent lives and destroying the hopes and dreams of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Since September 2000 and the start of the second Intifada, violence and terror have engulfed the region and devastated the prospects for peace.

It has become quite clear to me that the current impasse is not sustainable. There is no military solution to this conflict. The lack of any movement in the peace process only emboldens the opponents of peace, strengthens the hands of the extremists, and puts the vital interests of Israel, the Palestinian people, and the United States at risk.

Yet the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians have made it clear that they want to end this conflict and live side by side in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity, and security.

We owe it to them and ourselves to do everything in our power to make this vision a reality.

Indeed, a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement should be our top priorities in the region.

They will open the door to new opportunities, enabling us to tackle other seemingly intractable challenges in the region: the civil war in Iraq, the influence of Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran's uranium enrichment program.

As the Iraq Study Group report argued, ``The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.''

We cannot achieve these goals by sitting on the sidelines or sending low-level envoys to the region.

We need a vigorous and sustained high level American presence on the ground in the Middle East to make this happen.

I know that Secretary of State Rice is personally committed to bringing both sides together so they will take on the tough issues and find the right solutions, and she has my full support.

She has already made four trips to the region and I hope she will return again soon.

President Bush should also become engaged in this process and consider appointing a Special Envoy for Middle East peace who has extensive experience dealing with this issue and has served in a high- level government capacity.

We all know what a final peace agreement will look like. The drafters of the Geneva accord showed us that with courage and determination, the tough decisions can be made that will bring peace and prosperity to both sides.

While it is critical that the United States take a leadership role on this issue, it is also critical that moderate voices in the Arab world be a voice for peace.

That is why the Arab League Peace Initiative is important. It is an example where Arab leaders have stepped forward Hamas must also step forward and fulfill the demands of the international community by recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing and end all terror and incitement, and accepting past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Now is as good a time as ever to work for peace. There will always be excuses for those who don't want peace. But it is incumbent on those who wish for peace to work through the difficult issues.

As a United States Senator, I have stood by Israel and the Israeli people and will continue to do so. We will not waiver in our efforts to ensure their safety, stability, and prosperity. Achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is the cornerstone of that endeavor.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Snowe to introduce legislation to strengthen our international HIV prevention efforts and empower the people on the ground who are fighting this disease to design the most effective and appropriate HIV prevention program.

The bill is cosponsored by Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, Senator Clinton, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Brown, Senator Kerry, Senator Boxer, Senator Dodd, Senator Murray, and Senator Feingold.

This bill simply strikes the provision in the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003 that mandates that at least 33 percent of HIV prevention funding in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, be set aside ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs.

Let me be clear from the beginning: this bill does not prohibit the administration from funding ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs.

In fact, if the bill becomes law, the administration would still be able to spend all of our HIV prevention funding on abstinence-until- marriage programs if it decided do so.

This bill is about giving the administration and HIV/AIDS workers the flexibility to design the most effective HIV prevention program without having to worry about artificial earmarks that are based on politics, not science.

Indeed, in the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic, we cannot afford to tie ourselves down with undue restrictions.

Worldwide, 40 million people are infected with HIV. Each day, approximately 12,000 people are newly infected with HIV. In 2006, there were 4.3 million new HIV infections around the world, 2.8 million in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to almost two- thirds of the estimated 40 million people currently living with HIV.

Across sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence rate for the adult population is 6 percent. Mr. President, 2.1 million adults and children died of AIDS in 2005.

Despite these devastating numbers, according to UNAIDS, less than one in five people at risk for infection of HIV have access to basic prevention services. Studies have shown that two-thirds of new HIV infections could be averted with effective prevention programs.

Clearly, we still have a long ways to go to rein in this disease.

The 2003 HIV/AIDS legislation recognized that prevention, along with care and treatment, is an essential component of that fight and demands a multipronged approach. It endorsed the ``ABC'' model for prevention of the sexual transmission of HIV: abstain, be faithful, use condoms.

Yet instead of allowing HIV/AIDS workers and doctors the ability to use all of the prevention tools at their disposal to respond to local needs, we required them to spend at least 33 percent on ``abstinence- until marriage'' programs.

The question has to been asked: Why 33 percent? Why not 15 percent? Why not 50 percent? What scientific study concluded that 33 percent of HIV prevention funds for abstinence only programs was appropriate?

There was no study and it begs the question: when you are fighting a pandemic that has already cost so many lives, who should decide how to allocate funding among different types of HIV prevention programs, Congress or the people with the knowledge and expertise on how to fight this disease?

I support abstinence programs as a critical part of our HIV prevention programs. But mandating an earmark has negative consequences for other effective tools.

It means less money for funds to prevent mother-to-child transmission, less money to promote a comprehensive prevention message to high risk groups such as sexually active youth, and fewer funds to protect the blood supply.

Indeed, the evidence clearly shows that the one-third earmark has inhibited the ability of local communities to design a multipronged HIV prevention program that works best for them.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that found ``significant challenges'' associated with meeting the abstinence-until-marriage programs. The report concluded that the 33 percent abstinence spending requirement is squeezing out available funding for other key HIV prevention programs such as mother-to-child transmission and maintaining a health blood supply.

Country teams that are not exempted from the one-third earmark have to spend more than 33 percent of prevention funds on abstinence-until- marriage activities, sometimes at the expense of other programs, in order for the administration to meet the overall 33 percent earmark.

The spending requirement limited or reduced funding for programs directed to high-risk groups, such as sexually active youth and the majority of country teams on the ground reported that meeting the spending requirement ``challenges their ability to develop interventions that are responsive to local epidemiology and social norms.''

Last month, a congressionally mandated review by the Institute of Medicine on the first 3 years of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief also found significant problems with the abstinence earmark. It concluded: there is no evidence to support a 33 percent abstinence only earmark; the 33 percent earmark does not allow country teams on the ground the flexibility they need to respond to local needs.

Our bill seeks to address the problems highlighted in the GAO and the Institute of Medicine reports and provide local communities the necessary flexibility to achieve the goal we all share: stopping the spread of HIV, especially among young people.

Simply put, our bill balances congressional priorities with public health needs. Under our legislation, country teams can take into account country needs including cultural differences, epidemiology, population age groups and the stage of the epidemic in designing the most effective prevention program.

One size does not fit all. A prevention program in one country may look a lot different than a prevention program in another country.

A May 2003 report from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Henry J. Kaiser Foundation highlights that proven prevention programs include behavior change programs, including delay in the initiation of sexual activity, faithfulness and correct and consistent condom use; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; promoting voluntary counseling and testing; harm reduction programs for IV drug users; preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to child; increasing blood safety; empowering women and girls; controlling infection in health care settings; and devising programs geared towards people living with HIV.

For example, studies have shown that combining drugs with counseling and instruction on use of such drugs reduces mother-to-child transmission by 50 percent.

Such cost effective programs are not related to abstinence and should not be constrained by the 33 percent earmark on funds for prevention.

I understand the importance of teaching abstinence. It is and will remain a key part of our strategy in preventing the spread of HIV.

But let us listen to the words of someone with firsthand experience about the challenges sub-Saharan African countries face in combating HIV/AIDS and the constraints the ``abstinence-until-marriage'' earmark places on those efforts.

In an August 19, 2005, op-ed in the New York Times, Babatunde Osotimehin, chairman of the National Action Committee on AIDS in Nigeria, wrote:

Abstinence is one critical prevention strategy, but it

cannot be the only one. Focusing on abstinence assumes young

people can choose whether to have sex. For adolescent girls

in Nigeria and in many other countries, this is an inaccurate

assumption. Many girls fall prey to sexual violence and

coercion. . . . When dealing with AIDS, we must address the

realities and use a multipronged approach to improving

education and health systems, one that can reach all of our

people.

He concludes:

National governments must have the freedom to employ the

very best strategies at our disposal to help our people.

I could not agree more.

If we want to help the girls of Nigeria and the youth of sub-Saharan Africa, we cannot limit the information they receive about keeping them safe from acquiring HIV.

We do not have time to lose. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and support a pro-abstinence, multipronged approach to preventing the spread of HIV.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Snowe to introduce legislation to strengthen our international HIV prevention efforts and empower the people on the ground who are fighting this disease to design the most effective and appropriate HIV prevention program.

The bill is cosponsored by Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, Senator Clinton, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Brown, Senator Kerry, Senator Boxer, Senator Dodd, Senator Murray, and Senator Feingold.

This bill simply strikes the provision in the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003 that mandates that at least 33 percent of HIV prevention funding in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, be set aside ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs.

Let me be clear from the beginning: this bill does not prohibit the administration from funding ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs.

In fact, if the bill becomes law, the administration would still be able to spend all of our HIV prevention funding on abstinence-until- marriage programs if it decided do so.

This bill is about giving the administration and HIV/AIDS workers the flexibility to design the most effective HIV prevention program without having to worry about artificial earmarks that are based on politics, not science.

Indeed, in the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic, we cannot afford to tie ourselves down with undue restrictions.

Worldwide, 40 million people are infected with HIV. Each day, approximately 12,000 people are newly infected with HIV. In 2006, there were 4.3 million new HIV infections around the world, 2.8 million in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to almost two- thirds of the estimated 40 million people currently living with HIV.

Across sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence rate for the adult population is 6 percent. Mr. President, 2.1 million adults and children died of AIDS in 2005.

Despite these devastating numbers, according to UNAIDS, less than one in five people at risk for infection of HIV have access to basic prevention services. Studies have shown that two-thirds of new HIV infections could be averted with effective prevention programs.

Clearly, we still have a long ways to go to rein in this disease.

The 2003 HIV/AIDS legislation recognized that prevention, along with care and treatment, is an essential component of that fight and demands a multipronged approach. It endorsed the ``ABC'' model for prevention of the sexual transmission of HIV: abstain, be faithful, use condoms.

Yet instead of allowing HIV/AIDS workers and doctors the ability to use all of the prevention tools at their disposal to respond to local needs, we required them to spend at least 33 percent on ``abstinence- until marriage'' programs.

The question has to been asked: Why 33 percent? Why not 15 percent? Why not 50 percent? What scientific study concluded that 33 percent of HIV prevention funds for abstinence only programs was appropriate?

There was no study and it begs the question: when you are fighting a pandemic that has already cost so many lives, who should decide how to allocate funding among different types of HIV prevention programs, Congress or the people with the knowledge and expertise on how to fight this disease?

I support abstinence programs as a critical part of our HIV prevention programs. But mandating an earmark has negative consequences for other effective tools.

It means less money for funds to prevent mother-to-child transmission, less money to promote a comprehensive prevention message to high risk groups such as sexually active youth, and fewer funds to protect the blood supply.

Indeed, the evidence clearly shows that the one-third earmark has inhibited the ability of local communities to design a multipronged HIV prevention program that works best for them.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that found ``significant challenges'' associated with meeting the abstinence-until-marriage programs. The report concluded that the 33 percent abstinence spending requirement is squeezing out available funding for other key HIV prevention programs such as mother-to-child transmission and maintaining a health blood supply.

Country teams that are not exempted from the one-third earmark have to spend more than 33 percent of prevention funds on abstinence-until- marriage activities, sometimes at the expense of other programs, in order for the administration to meet the overall 33 percent earmark.

The spending requirement limited or reduced funding for programs directed to high-risk groups, such as sexually active youth and the majority of country teams on the ground reported that meeting the spending requirement ``challenges their ability to develop interventions that are responsive to local epidemiology and social norms.''

Last month, a congressionally mandated review by the Institute of Medicine on the first 3 years of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief also found significant problems with the abstinence earmark. It concluded: there is no evidence to support a 33 percent abstinence only earmark; the 33 percent earmark does not allow country teams on the ground the flexibility they need to respond to local needs.

Our bill seeks to address the problems highlighted in the GAO and the Institute of Medicine reports and provide local communities the necessary flexibility to achieve the goal we all share: stopping the spread of HIV, especially among young people.

Simply put, our bill balances congressional priorities with public health needs. Under our legislation, country teams can take into account country needs including cultural differences, epidemiology, population age groups and the stage of the epidemic in designing the most effective prevention program.

One size does not fit all. A prevention program in one country may look a lot different than a prevention program in another country.

A May 2003 report from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Henry J. Kaiser Foundation highlights that proven prevention programs include behavior change programs, including delay in the initiation of sexual activity, faithfulness and correct and consistent condom use; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; promoting voluntary counseling and testing; harm reduction programs for IV drug users; preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to child; increasing blood safety; empowering women and girls; controlling infection in health care settings; and devising programs geared towards people living with HIV.

For example, studies have shown that combining drugs with counseling and instruction on use of such drugs reduces mother-to-child transmission by 50 percent.

Such cost effective programs are not related to abstinence and should not be constrained by the 33 percent earmark on funds for prevention.

I understand the importance of teaching abstinence. It is and will remain a key part of our strategy in preventing the spread of HIV.

But let us listen to the words of someone with firsthand experience about the challenges sub-Saharan African countries face in combating HIV/AIDS and the constraints the ``abstinence-until-marriage'' earmark places on those efforts.

In an August 19, 2005, op-ed in the New York Times, Babatunde Osotimehin, chairman of the National Action Committee on AIDS in Nigeria, wrote:

Abstinence is one critical prevention strategy, but it

cannot be the only one. Focusing on abstinence assumes young

people can choose whether to have sex. For adolescent girls

in Nigeria and in many other countries, this is an inaccurate

assumption. Many girls fall prey to sexual violence and

coercion. . . . When dealing with AIDS, we must address the

realities and use a multipronged approach to improving

education and health systems, one that can reach all of our

people.

He concludes:

National governments must have the freedom to employ the

very best strategies at our disposal to help our people.

I could not agree more.

If we want to help the girls of Nigeria and the youth of sub-Saharan Africa, we cannot limit the information they receive about keeping them safe from acquiring HIV.

We do not have time to lose. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and support a pro-abstinence, multipronged approach to preventing the spread of HIV.

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

Madam President. I rise to honor the memory of Senator Craig Thomas, who passed away last night, Monday, June 4, at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD.

I knew Senator Thomas--as we all did--as a quiet gentleman, and a dedicated advocate for the people of Wyoming.

My heart goes out to his wife Susan and to their four children.

Senator Thomas died of acute myeloid leukemia, which he had been fighting for several months.

All of us are familiar with Senator Thomas' courage, because we saw it here, in the Capitol, and on the floor of the Senate.

He came here to do his duty, even though he was fighting a disease that would ultimately take his life. That is the mark of true courage-- not at all surprising, coming from this son of the American West.

Senator Thomas was raised on a ranch near Cody, WY. He attended public schools, and graduated from the University of Wyoming at Laramie, earning a degree in agriculture.

After college, he served 4 years in the Marine Corps. Then he went on to become vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau, and general manager of the Wyoming Rural Electric Association.

He served 5 years in the Wyoming State Legislature. In 1989, he was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election to replace Dick Cheney, who had been named Secretary of Defense. He was elected to his first term in the Senate in 1994.

Senator Thomas was reelected to his third term last year, with 70 percent of the vote.

Here, Senator Thomas was a strong voice for the people of his home State.

This included working to improve health care opportunities for rural families, work he pursued as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, and as cochair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus.

Senator Thomas served as chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, and his work was recognized many times by the National Parks Conservation Association.

The organization honored him with its William Penn Mott Jr. Leadership Award, and with the National Parks Achievement Award.

I had the distinct pleasure of working with Senator Thomas on some issues close to my heart.

Earlier this year, he was part of a bipartisan coalition that joined with me, and with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to extend the sale of the breast cancer research stamp, which has raised $54.9 million for breast cancer research.

Last year, Senator Thomas joined with me to cosponsor legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, in recognition of his message of compassion and peace.

And Senator Thomas and I collaborated on a plan to use Wyoming Powder River Coal to produce cleaner electricity, which would be sold to Western States, including California.

Senator Thomas served Wyoming and the Nation well. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, today I offer 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 20 years ago from Mexico. He started working as a busboy 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 past 20 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, 19, is undocumented. Adilene recently graduated from the Immaculate Conception Academy and hopes to attend 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 backlog 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 20 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 2000, 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.

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 introduced 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.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement, the letters of community support, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007, together with my colleague Senator Boxer. This legislation authorizes Federal participation in a regional water reuse project that is the first of its kind in Northern California, and model for the West.

The program will allow urban water agencies to take treated wastewater now discharged into the sensitive bay-delta ecosystem and put it to productive use on water-short agricultural lands and environmentally valuable wetlands. It is an innovative ``win-win'' solution that will protect the environment as well as meet the future water needs of urban and agricultural

water users in the North Bay region of California.

Agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing, and will continue to encounter, major water shortages. At the same time, as regulations continue to restrict and/or eliminate wastewater discharge, many communities in the North Bay region will face challenges as they try to determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program will address both problems and enhance the ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay. Specifically, the program will distribute reclaimed water through a conveyance system and deliver it to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year.

The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery. Furthermore, in the off- season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will be used to increase surface water flows for the restoration of wetlands, creating habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wetland species.

Most notably, this program grew from a collaboration of the three major stakeholders in the region that vie for the same water. It is significant that the program is supported by the local governments in three counties, Napa, Sonoma and Marin Counties; agricultural organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the Napa Vintners Association, the North Bay Agriculture Alliance; and environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute.

Thus, the North Bay Water Reuse Program brings stakeholders that are usually at odds with one another to the table to find a solution that is beneficial to all.

Finally, I would like to note the energy benefits of this project. The Sonoma Valley treatment plant, installing solar panels that will generate 40 percent of its energy needs. Another partner in the program, Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, generates 90 percent of its operating energy using solar panels.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program will allow vineyard managers to cease or significantly reduce their use of gas and electric powered pumps that currently deliver irrigation water. The program proponents expect to see a net reduction of overall energy use for regional irrigation operations, as well as a net reduction in the emissions of carbon dioxide from irrigation operations.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act. This legislation authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau, to participate in the design and construction of the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project, project, that is essential to

improving the water supply in the Madera Irrigation District, MID, in Madera County, CA, and in California's Central Valley.

Representative George Radanovich has introduced companion legislation to this bill in the House, and I look forward to working with him to get this bill enacted.

Agriculture is a multibillion enterprise in California, which produces a significant portion of the Nation's food supply. To secure this food supply, water is essential. When constructed, the project will have the capacity to store up to 250,000 acre-feet of water and move up to 55,000 acre feet in or out of storage each year.

With increasing demands on limited water supply, the project will enable water users to store excess wet year water supply and this stored water can then be used during dry years to meet demand. To ensure the viability of the groundwater table and address overdraft problems, 10 percent of the water placed in storage would be left in the ground to replenish the aquifer over time.

This Project is also a useful complement to efforts to restore the San Joaquin River. Restoring water to the San Joaquin River may reduce the water supply available to agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley by up to 165,000 acre feet per year.

It is very important to me to do what I can to help make up this water deficit. The Madera Water Bank is one project that can help, and I will be looking at it and other projects closely to prioritize limited Federal appropriations to address this important need.

MID, the local agency that will build, own and manage the project has already made a major financial commitment to making the water bank a reality. MID has spent $37.5 million to purchase the nearly 14,000 acre Madera Ranch, which will be the site of the water bank, and millions more on studies. This land is ideal for storing water in the aquifer. Over 11,000 acres of the ranch also constitute valuable habitat for numerous species and contain large sections of the region's native grasslands that will be preserved.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the predecessor legislation, H.R. 3897, which passed the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. As a result of that hearing, two changes were made to the legislation.

First, the total cost of the project is capped at $90 million. Under the legislation, the maximum Federal contribution will be $22.5 million or 25 percent of the total cost of the project, whichever is less. This change provides certainty and limits the Federal Government's financial exposure in supporting this project.

The second change to last year's legislation is the decision to declare the project ``feasible'' without further study. The reason for this approach relates to the project's unusual history.

The feasibility of constructing a water bank on the Madera Ranch property has been under consideration for over a decade. In 1996 the Bureau began studying this possibility, and in 1998 the Bureau finalized plans to fund a water bank on the property. After conducting extensive studies regarding the feasibility of building a water bank on the property, the Bureau was prepared to pay over $40 million for the property and $60-$70 million to construct the water bank. This total amount, in excess of $100 million, is significantly more than the cost of MID's water bank almost 10 years later. Although the Bureau eventually withdrew from the project because of local concerns regarding sizing, water quality, and nonlocal ownership issues, no one has ever disputed the suitability of the site for a water bank.

After the Bureau's involvement ended, Azurix, an Enron subsidiary, attempted to build a water bank but was unable to complete the project because of many of the same concerns raised during the Bureau's efforts. However, many more studies were done during this phase for the reformulated project. MID has also conducted further studies. To date, over $8 million has been spent on studies related to the Project, exclusive of the Bureau's own extensive studies of the project.

The legislation identifies 18 specific studies done over the past decade on this project, many by the Bureau itself and others by private parties and MID, all with the Bureau's full knowledge and involvement. In many cases, the same engineering consulting firms used by the Bureau were retained to conduct these further studies. There is simply nothing left to study, and we should proceed immediately to the construction phase of this project.

The Bureau has been a long-term supporter of California agriculture, and working in partnership with the State, local governments, water users and others has helped provide irrigation water for over 10 million farmland acres.

The MID water bank is consistent with the Bureau's historical mission of supporting such locally controlled and initiated water projects. Swift enactment of this legislation is necessary to bring over 10 years of study to a conclusion and make the water bank a reality for Madera County, the surrounding region, the Central Valley and the entire State of California.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the Riverside-Corona feeder. This project, which is being undertaken by Western Municipal Water District, would provide one of California's fastest growing but drought prone regions, with 40,000 acre-feet of new supply at a reasonable cost of approximately $370 per acre foot. The project would efficiently integrate groundwater storage with existing surface supply management.

The purpose of the Riverside-Corona feeder water supply project is to capture and store new water in the underground aquifer in wet years in order to increase water supply, reduce water costs, and improve water quality. The project will include about 20 wells and 28 miles of pipeline. Studies have shown the safe annual yield of the aquifer is about 40,000 acre-feet.

The project would allow locally stored water to replace the need to import water from Colorado River and State water project sources in times of drought or other shortages. The project proposes to manage the ground water levels by the construction of ground water wells and pumping capacity to deliver the pumped ground water supply to water users. A new water conveyance pipeline is also proposed that will serve western Riverside County.

For water users, dependence on imported water in dry years will be reduced, water costs will be reduced, and water reliability will be improved.

There are also very important environmental remediation aspects of the project. Up to half of the wells would be placed within plumes of VOCs and perchlorate. These wells could remediate about 20,000 acre- feet of currently contaminated water per year. Detailed feasibility studies and environmental reports have been prepared and approved by Western Municipal Water District and certified by the State of California.

The California State Water Resources Control Board recognizes that the Riverside Corona feeder is an important project, recently awarding it $4.3 million from proposition 50 competitive grant funds.

Because water agencies understand that the project is integral to regional water planning, the Riverside-Corona feeder has the support of agencies upstream in San Bernardino County and downstream in Orange County. This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Integrated Resource Plan, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority's Integrated Watershed Plan, and the water management plans for the cities of Riverside, Norco and Corona as well as the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District.

This is a bipartisan initiative, as witnessed by the list of cosponsors of the House version of the bill I introduce today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River.

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

Mr. President, together with my good friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, I am pleased to introduce today legislation to help the San Francisco bay area a region with a growing population, limited

water resources, and a unique environmental setting, address its critical water needs.

The bill, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act of 2007, would help seven bay area communities increase their municipal water supplies through innovative and much-needed water recycling projects.

These projects offer significant benefits. For California and the Federal Government such benefits include: the preservation of State and Federal reservoir supplies for higher uses rather than for urban landscape irrigation, particularly in drought years; and, a cost effective, environmentally friendly, implementable solution for increased dry year yield in the sensitive bay-delta region. Regional and local benefits include: the preservation of ever declining water supplies from the Sierra and delta for higher uses; assistance in drought-proofing the region through provision of a sustainable and reliable source of water; and reduction in wastewater discharges to the sensitive bay-delta environment.

The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program is a partnership between 17 local bay area water and wastewater agencies, the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that is dedicated to maximizing water recycling throughout the region. The regional approach taken by the bay area project sponsors ensures that projects with the greatest regional, statewide, and national benefits receive the highest priority for implementation.

This bill would authorize the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to participate in seven bay area water recycling program projects that are closest to completion. Each community with a project would be eligible to receive 25 percent of the project's construction cost. The total cost of the seven projects is $110 million, but the Federal Government's share is only $27.5 million. State funding is available for these projects.

For the most part, the projects are ready to proceed and start delivering their benefits the projects having been repeatedly vetted, both internally at the local level and through the various steps of the Federal review process but Federal funding is needed to make implementation a reality and to allow the many benefits of these projects to be realized.

Specifically, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the following bay area water reuse projects: Antioch Recycled Water project--Delta Diablo Sanitation District, city of Antioch; North Coast County Water District Recycled Water project-- North Coast County Water District; Mountain View/Moffett Area Water Reuse Project--city of Palo Alto, city of Mountain View: Pittsburg Recycled Water Project-Delta Diablo Sanitation District, city of Pittsburg; Redwood City Recycled Water project--city of Redwood; South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project-Santa Clara Valley Water District, South County Regional Wastewater Authority; and, South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility--Santa Clara Valley Water District, city of San Jose.

These seven projects are estimated to make 12,205 acre-feet of water available annually in the short term, and 37,600 acre-feet annually in the long term, all while reducing demand on the delta and on existing water infrastructure.

Congressman George Miller introduced a companion bill, H.R.1526, in the House on March 14, 2007. The bill was cosponsored by other bay area lawmakers, including Representatives Anna Eshoo, Ellen Tauscher, Jerry McNerney, Tom Lantos, Mike Honda; Zoe Lofgren, and Pete Stark.

Water recycling offers great potential to States like California that suffer periodic droughts and have limited fresh water supplies. To address these issues, the bill would establish a partnership between the Federal Government and local communities to implement a regional water recycling program in the bay area. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Barbara Boxer and Daniel Inouye to introduce legislation that would authorize the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center, a World War II-era Japanese American internment camp, located in Northern California.

My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman John Doolittle and Congresswoman Doris Matsui, also are introducing companion legislation today.

In 1942, as part of a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 to authorize the U.S. military to incarcerate Japanese American families from California and other west coast States, in violation of their due process rights afforded to all Americans.

Over the years, California's political leaders have led a national bipartisan effort to ensure that this chapter in American history is not forgotten.

In 1992, my colleagues in the California congressional delegation passed bi-partisan legislation to establish the Manzanar National Historic Site, the Nation's first unit of the National Park System dedicated to telling the story of the wrongful internment of the Japanese American community during World War II.

I am pleased to say that Manzanar has been a terrific success story. My colleague Representative Jerry Lewis and I were able to secure Federal appropriations to refurbish the camp auditorium to accommodate the tens of thousands of visitors to the site. Last year, nearly 90,000 people visited the Manzanar National Historic Site to learn about this unfortunate chapter in United States history.

As part of the Manzanar legislation, Congress directed the National Park Service to conduct a study of the other camp sites and to recommend National Historic Landmark designation for these sites. Based on this study, the Department of the Interior designated Tule Lake as a National Historic Landmark last year, upon finding that the remaining 42 acres of federally owned land at the site possesses national significance.

Of all of the camp sites, Tule Lake has retained some of the most significant historic features dating back to the internment. The federally owned lands include numerous camp buildings in their original locations, most notably the camp stockade, which was a ``jail within a jail.'' The finding of the site's national significance by the Secretary of the Interior last year is a key step forward in the process to evaluate the site's potential for management by the National Park Service.

Over the past several years, the Tule Lake Preservation Committee, the Japanese American Citizens League, the Japanese American National Museum and other local, regional and national partners have worked with Modoc County and the local community to develop a recommendation to study the potential for designation of the Tule Lake Segregation Center as a National Historic Site. I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors.

Although the Tule Lake Segregation Center is already a National Historic Landmark, the 42-acre site is not managed by the National Park Service. This bill would authorize the National Park Service to study the feasibility and suitability of managing the Federal lands at Tule Lake as a 42-acre National Historic Site, to be managed as part of the Lava Beds National Monument. Through this legislation, the NPS will develop various management alternatives for the site and give the public an opportunity to comment on the alternatives, through a public process. In light of the recent National Park Service work to prepare the national historic landmark designation, the cost to complete this study is quite modest. Upon completion of the study, the NPS would transmit the study to Congress for review.

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the internment of Japanese- Americans, when the Federal Government ordered Japanese American men, women and children to report to temporary assembly centers, including 13 centers in California. Many families were broken up as fathers were sent to prisons, work camps and Department of Justice camps hundreds of miles away. Without hearings or any evidence of disloyalty, Japanese- American families were transported to assembly centers in April and May of 1942. The largest assembly center was at the Santa Anita racetrack, which held over 18,000 people in horse stalls and other makeshift quarters.

Deprived of their basic constitutional rights, Japanese-American citizens and resident aliens were held in these centers until the U.S. government built more permanent camps in 10 locations in California and throughout the Western States and Arkansas. Together, these camps held over 120,000 Japanese Americans, of which about three quarters were living in California before the war.

My good friend, the late-Representative Robert Matsui, was just an infant when his family was ordered from their home in Sacramento to the Pinedale Assembly Center. From there, he was sent to the Tule Lake, Segregation Center in Modoc County, CA not far from the Oregon border.

Like the other camps, the Tule Lake Relocation Center was constructed in a remote area, on a large tract of federally owned land, managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Prisoners there held frequent demonstrations and strikes, demanding their rights under the U.S. Constitution. As a result, Tule Lake was made a ``segregation camp,'' and internees from other camps who had refused to take the loyalty oath or had caused disturbances were sent there.

Despite these injustices, many young men in camp answered the call to serve in the U.S. Army and demonstrated their loyalty to the United States and to defend the same basic constitutional freedoms that had been violated by the U.S. Government's actions. Japanese Americans served with great valor and bravery in Europe, including our colleague Senator Daniel Inouye.

During its operation, Tule Lake was the largest of the 10 camps, with 18,789 people housed in makeshift barracks. Opened on May 27, 1942, Tule Lake was one of the last camps to be closed, staying open until March 20, 1946, 7 months following the end of World War II.

Following World War II, our Nation has recognized that the forced evacuation and incarceration of Japanese Americans was wrong and that there was no basis to question the loyalty and patriotism of Japanese Americans.

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a grim chapter in America's history. Conducting this special resources study,

and the potential creation of the Tule Lake National Historic Site, will help ensure that we honor surviving internees during their lifetime and will serve as a lasting reminder of our ability to inflict pain and suffering upon our fellow Americans.

It is important that we recognize the historic significance of Tule Lake Segregation Center within the lifetimes of the few surviving Japanese-American internees, before many of their stories are lost.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007, together with my colleague Senator Boxer. This legislation authorizes Federal participation in a regional water reuse project that is the first of its kind in Northern California, and model for the West.

The program will allow urban water agencies to take treated wastewater now discharged into the sensitive bay-delta ecosystem and put it to productive use on water-short agricultural lands and environmentally valuable wetlands. It is an innovative ``win-win'' solution that will protect the environment as well as meet the future water needs of urban and agricultural

water users in the North Bay region of California.

Agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing, and will continue to encounter, major water shortages. At the same time, as regulations continue to restrict and/or eliminate wastewater discharge, many communities in the North Bay region will face challenges as they try to determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program will address both problems and enhance the ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay. Specifically, the program will distribute reclaimed water through a conveyance system and deliver it to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year.

The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery. Furthermore, in the off- season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will be used to increase surface water flows for the restoration of wetlands, creating habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wetland species.

Most notably, this program grew from a collaboration of the three major stakeholders in the region that vie for the same water. It is significant that the program is supported by the local governments in three counties, Napa, Sonoma and Marin Counties; agricultural organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the Napa Vintners Association, the North Bay Agriculture Alliance; and environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute.

Thus, the North Bay Water Reuse Program brings stakeholders that are usually at odds with one another to the table to find a solution that is beneficial to all.

Finally, I would like to note the energy benefits of this project. The Sonoma Valley treatment plant, installing solar panels that will generate 40 percent of its energy needs. Another partner in the program, Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, generates 90 percent of its operating energy using solar panels.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program will allow vineyard managers to cease or significantly reduce their use of gas and electric powered pumps that currently deliver irrigation water. The program proponents expect to see a net reduction of overall energy use for regional irrigation operations, as well as a net reduction in the emissions of carbon dioxide from irrigation operations.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act. This legislation authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau, to participate in the design and construction of the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project, project, that is essential to

improving the water supply in the Madera Irrigation District, MID, in Madera County, CA, and in California's Central Valley.

Representative George Radanovich has introduced companion legislation to this bill in the House, and I look forward to working with him to get this bill enacted.

Agriculture is a multibillion enterprise in California, which produces a significant portion of the Nation's food supply. To secure this food supply, water is essential. When constructed, the project will have the capacity to store up to 250,000 acre-feet of water and move up to 55,000 acre feet in or out of storage each year.

With increasing demands on limited water supply, the project will enable water users to store excess wet year water supply and this stored water can then be used during dry years to meet demand. To ensure the viability of the groundwater table and address overdraft problems, 10 percent of the water placed in storage would be left in the ground to replenish the aquifer over time.

This Project is also a useful complement to efforts to restore the San Joaquin River. Restoring water to the San Joaquin River may reduce the water supply available to agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley by up to 165,000 acre feet per year.

It is very important to me to do what I can to help make up this water deficit. The Madera Water Bank is one project that can help, and I will be looking at it and other projects closely to prioritize limited Federal appropriations to address this important need.

MID, the local agency that will build, own and manage the project has already made a major financial commitment to making the water bank a reality. MID has spent $37.5 million to purchase the nearly 14,000 acre Madera Ranch, which will be the site of the water bank, and millions more on studies. This land is ideal for storing water in the aquifer. Over 11,000 acres of the ranch also constitute valuable habitat for numerous species and contain large sections of the region's native grasslands that will be preserved.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the predecessor legislation, H.R. 3897, which passed the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. As a result of that hearing, two changes were made to the legislation.

First, the total cost of the project is capped at $90 million. Under the legislation, the maximum Federal contribution will be $22.5 million or 25 percent of the total cost of the project, whichever is less. This change provides certainty and limits the Federal Government's financial exposure in supporting this project.

The second change to last year's legislation is the decision to declare the project ``feasible'' without further study. The reason for this approach relates to the project's unusual history.

The feasibility of constructing a water bank on the Madera Ranch property has been under consideration for over a decade. In 1996 the Bureau began studying this possibility, and in 1998 the Bureau finalized plans to fund a water bank on the property. After conducting extensive studies regarding the feasibility of building a water bank on the property, the Bureau was prepared to pay over $40 million for the property and $60-$70 million to construct the water bank. This total amount, in excess of $100 million, is significantly more than the cost of MID's water bank almost 10 years later. Although the Bureau eventually withdrew from the project because of local concerns regarding sizing, water quality, and nonlocal ownership issues, no one has ever disputed the suitability of the site for a water bank.

After the Bureau's involvement ended, Azurix, an Enron subsidiary, attempted to build a water bank but was unable to complete the project because of many of the same concerns raised during the Bureau's efforts. However, many more studies were done during this phase for the reformulated project. MID has also conducted further studies. To date, over $8 million has been spent on studies related to the Project, exclusive of the Bureau's own extensive studies of the project.

The legislation identifies 18 specific studies done over the past decade on this project, many by the Bureau itself and others by private parties and MID, all with the Bureau's full knowledge and involvement. In many cases, the same engineering consulting firms used by the Bureau were retained to conduct these further studies. There is simply nothing left to study, and we should proceed immediately to the construction phase of this project.

The Bureau has been a long-term supporter of California agriculture, and working in partnership with the State, local governments, water users and others has helped provide irrigation water for over 10 million farmland acres.

The MID water bank is consistent with the Bureau's historical mission of supporting such locally controlled and initiated water projects. Swift enactment of this legislation is necessary to bring over 10 years of study to a conclusion and make the water bank a reality for Madera County, the surrounding region, the Central Valley and the entire State of California.

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