Floor Statements

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, I thank the manager of the bill. I want to say a few words on the bill in general and then move to an amendment, if I might.

I am a supporter of this bill. It is not a perfect bill. I think it is easy to tell the people on the far right of the political spectrum and the far left of the political spectrum are not happy with this bill. But what this bill accomplishes--like nothing I have ever seen in my 15 years in the Senate--is that it is a piece of work that is a product of people on both sides of the aisle sitting down and trying to work something out that can get 60 votes in this Chamber and move on, and not be a useless piece of legislation, but rather one that offers a kind of comprehensive reform that has definition.

People use the word ``comprehensive,'' and nobody really knows what they are talking about. But in the case of this bill, anyone who carefully looks at the bill will understand what the word ``comprehensive'' means because the word means addressing all sides of the immigration issue, taking borders that are broken and repairing them, stabilizing a border with additional border patrol, prosecutors, detention facilities, and also strengthening interior enforcement.

Three major sections--called titles--of this bill really deal with enforcement of our borders, enforcement of the interior. Then there is the question of how do you deal with the 12 million people who have been here for some time illegally, most of whom are engaged in legitimate, bona fide work. How do you deal with what has developed to be an entire subterranean economy in this country, with its own special shops, stores, and special points of congregation for work? How do you remove the element of fear that drives all of this further and further underground?

The more the ICE agents--formerly INS--pick up people in the workplace for deportation, the more you see the inequality and injustice--there was one family, about a week ago in San Diego, by the name of Munoz, who had been here for a long period of time. They both worked and raised three children who were born in this country. They owned their home and their furniture.

Well, in came the agents, who picked up the parents. The parents were out of the country and the children were left. The home was sold and the furniture was gone. And this is a family who had the piece of the rock of America. They were contributing to the economy of America. But they were destroyed.

Many of us in this body believe you cannot find and deport 12 million people. My State of California has the largest number of people living in undocumented status, which is estimated to be in the vicinity of 3 million people. They are a vital part of our workforce. They are 90 percent of California's agricultural workforce, which is the largest of the 50 States. They also work in service industries. You see them in hotels and in restaurants, and you see them in construction and housing. So they have become an indigenous part of the California workforce.

This bill puts together reforms in immigration with a process to bring those people out of the shadows. What has bothered me over these days, as I listen to the television and read in the newspapers, is I hear the drumbeat, and I even see small signs on automobiles that simply say ``amnesty.'' This bill is not amnesty.

What is amnesty? Amnesty is the categorical forgiveness of a crime, an event, or whatever the issue may be. This does not do that. This sets up a roadmap, which is complicated for someone who wants to remain in this country, to be legal, to be able to work legally, and perhaps even someday get a green card, and maybe someday further off, become a citizen.

Well, there is an 8-year road created in this bill. There are fines of $5,000 plus an additional $1,500 fee for processing. There is a touchback, which may be changed in a further amendment, but at this stage in the debate it is this: If during that 8-year period the individual who has now achieved this Z visa, which gives them the right to work in this country, decides they want to pursue a green card, they would go to their country of origin, to the nearest U.S. consulate, and with the Z visa they can come in and out of the country at will. They don't have to stay in their country of origin. What they would do is file their papers. They would submit their fingerprints, and they would turn around and come back into the United States. Then, electronically, the evaluation would be done after the present line for green cards expires. Everybody waiting in line legally for a green card gets it. They would have the opportunity to get a green card. This is estimated to be between 8 and 13 years. During that period of 8 years, they would have to re-up, come in and prove that they have done the things the bill requires them to do. This is not an amnesty.

Now, the other part is that there are changes made in what is called chain migration. Currently, one person on a green card can bring in any number of family members. This is changed to the nuclear family. The person holding the green card can bring in their spouse and their minor children. That future green card, after the 8 years--after the list is expunged, future green cards would be granted on the basis of the point system, which deals with merit in the sense of the availability of job, work, the educational attributes of the individual, the family, and other things. I think it is as close as we are going to get to solving this problem and creating the interior enforcement, the border stability, and the laws that are necessary to secure the rule of law when it deals with immigration.

Mr. President, many Senators from both sides of the aisle worked long hours over the past several months to address immigration reform. And through the process of negotiation and compromise a tough, fair, and workable bill has been crafted.

The bill before the Senate provides solutions to restore the rule of law, fix our broken borders, protect our national security, and bring the 12 million people now living illegally in the U.S. out of the shadows.

I believe this bipartisan bill is a strong first step toward addressing illegal immigration in a fair and balanced way.

Immigration Enforcement

The bill is predicated on several fundamental principles. The first is that we must control our borders and protect our national security.

The bill ensures that before a single temporary visa is issued, or a single undocumented alien in the United States can earn their green card, several important ``triggers'' must be met--``triggers'' that show the Federal Government is taking a hard stance on enforcing the law and enforcing the border. The triggers include:

Installing at least 200 miles of vehicle barriers as well as 370 miles of fencing, 70 ground-based radar and camera towers, and deploying 4 unmanned aerial vehicles along the southern border; detaining all illegal aliens apprehended at the southern border, rather than continuing the ``catch and release'' policy; establishing and using the new Employment Verification system to confirm who can work in the United States legally and who cannot, and hiring 3,500 new border patrol agents to increase the total number of agents on the border from 14,500 to 18,000.

Then later, after the first 3,500 border patrol agents are hired, the bill requires that an additional 10,500 more border patrol agents are hired. So, the total number of border patrol agents will increase from its current level of 14,500, to 18,000 under the trigger, to eventually 28,500 by the end of five years.

The bill also requires hiring 1,000 new immigration agents, 200 new prosecutors, and new immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals members.

Next, the bill increases the penalties for people who illegally enter the U.S. or who overstay their visas.

Under current law, if an individual enters the U.S. illegally or overstays their visa they are barred from returning to the United States for three years, and could be barred for up to 10 years if they stayed in the U.S. illegally for over a year.

However, under the bill, if an individual is in the United States illegally the penalty is increased so that the person would be barred forever--and never be allowed to come to the United States.

The bill also includes provisions to fight passport and visa fraud based on the bill that Senator Sessions and I introduced this year.

These new provisions would punish people who traffic in 10 or more passports or visas, and increase the penalty for document fraud crimes to 20 years.

By including these tough new enforcement measures, this bill goes a long way to protecting our borders and takes a hard stand against individuals who violate the law.

Employment Enforcement

The bill also takes a hard stand against employers who violate the law and hire illegal immigrants.

For too long, the administration has not enforced the laws on the books, and the negligible fines for hiring illegal aliens were just a part of doing business--this bill changes that.

Under current law, an employer can be fined $250 to $2,500 for hiring an unauthorized worker; the bill increases that fine to $5,000.

The bill also increases the penalties for employers who repeatedly violate the law and hire illegal aliens. Under current law, the highest penalty that can be assessed against an employer is $10,000 for a repeat violation; this bill imposes a new larger fine of $75,000 for repeat violations.

The bill creates a new employment verification system--mandating that within 3 years, all employers must verify with the Government that all of their employees, foreign and American, are who they say they are.

This new system will require employers to submit each employee's name and social security number or visa numbers to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS will then confirm whether the employee is in fact legally allowed to work.

If the DHS says the employee is not legally allowed to work or his legal status is in question, the employee then has 10 days to challenge the Government's conclusion, and while the employee is taking steps to contest his rejection, the Secretary must extend

the period of investigation and the employee cannot be fired.

This new verification system should ensure that individuals who are hired by American businesses are actually legally permitted to work in this country.

Grand Bargain

Once the security and enforcement measures were established, the negotiators sought to devise a pragmatic solution to deal with the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States.

This solution to this issue is what has been referred to as ``the grand bargain.''

In order to bring Democrats and Republicans together a compromise was adopted that creates a new ``Z'' visa that will establishes a strict path for those individuals who are already in the United States to be able to earn a legal status.

In exchange, the bill reforms the current immigration system and eliminates policies that allow for ``chain migration.''

Practical solution to 12 million now here

With respect to the first part of the grand bargain, I firmly believe we have to develop a practical solution to the deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

While some have complained that all 12 million undocumented aliens should be deported, such a solution is not practical nor is it reasonable--for many of those individuals and families who have become integrated into the fabric of their communities deportation would be a severe outcome.

For example, in my home State of California, the Munoz family from San Diego is facing exactly what a policy of absolute deportation would mean.

In 1989 Zulma and Abel Munoz came to the United States seeking medical care for their infant son who was sick--sadly, despite their efforts, 2 months later he died. At the time, Mrs. Munoz was pregnant with her second child, a girl, and a medical worker who had helped her son urged Mrs. Munoz to stay longer in the United States to make sure their infant daughter received proper care. They took that medical workers advice, and have remained in the United States since then. Both parents found work; they bought a home, and they repeatedly tried to legally adjust their status, but their attempts failed.

Then last month, at 7:30 p.m. on a Thursday night, Mrs. Munoz was arrested and led away from the house in her pajamas. Later when Mr. Munoz returned from Home Depot, he was handcuffed and taken away-- leaving behind their three children, now 16, 13, and 9.

There are many families, like Mr. and Mrs. Munoz, who are not criminals, who have lived and worked in their communities for years, and who are productive members of society, but who are also in the U.S. illegally.

Families like these should be given the opportunity to come out of shadows, to earn a legal status, and to eventually apply for a green card--and that is what this bill provides through the Z visa program.

Let me be clear, this is not an amnesty. For those who say it is, I think it is important to define what amnesty means. Amnesty is automatically giving those who broke the law a clean slate no questions asked. This bill does not do that.

Instead, to qualify for a green card each individual must wait until the backlog has been cleared--approximately 8 years--and during that time these individuals and families would need to pass a national security check; apply for a Z-visa that allows them to stay in the U.S. legally; work or get an education; pay taxes; learn English; pay a fine of $5,000, plus processing fees of at least $3,000; not commit crimes; reapply and undergo additional background checks; return to their home country for a ``touch-back'' for at least a day, to submit their application, provide a fingerprint , biographical and biometric information; and earn enough points under the same merit system that all future applicants will use.

This is not amnesty. This is not simply giving a green card to anyone who is in the country illegally. Instead, through the Z visa program and the new merit system, each individual must meet these significant demands in order to earn a green card.

Green card backlog

The second component of the ``grand bargain'' is to clear up the current backlog of individuals who have been waiting for green cards and to reform how green cards are awarded by creating a point system that is based on merit.

To achieve this, the bipartisan bill would provide about 200,000 new green cards annually that will go to those individuals who have followed the rules and applied for a green card prior to May 1, 2005.

For anyone who applied after May 1, 2005, they will now be required to re-apply through the new merit-based point system. This new point system is based on what has been done in other countries, including Canada and Australia. It sets up a framework to allow individuals to earn points that would qualify them to earn a green card.

Under this new system, individuals will get points for education, work history, ability to speak English, as well as whether they have U.S. citizen family members. This new point system is a balanced approach that considers multiple factors and allows individuals to earn their green cards.

Temporary Worker Program

Finally, the third component in the ``grand bargain'' is to ensure that temporary means temporary--meaning workers who come to the United States on a ``temporary worker visa'' must return to their home countries when the visa expires.

Under the new ``Y-visa'' there are 2 temporary worker programs--one that brings in workers for 2 years, and then requires the worker to leave for a year; and a second, seasonal Y-visa where workers can come in for 10 months, and then are required to leave for 2 months.

Workers who come to the United States under the longer ``2 years in the country, 1 year out of the country'' program can renew their visa so that they can work up to 6 years total; but every 2 years they must leave the United States for a year.

However, if Y-visa holder wants to bring their family with them to the United States then they would be limited to only 1 renewal and they would have to demonstrate that they can support their family. They would do this by showing that the family has health insurance and that they will earn a wage above 150 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.

Finally, the new Y-visa program is capped at 400,000 foreign workers a year for the 2-year/1-year program and 100,000 visas for the seasonal 10-month/2-month program. Both of these caps contain escalation clauses that allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue additional visas up to 600,000 per year for the longer program and up to 200,000 per year for the seasonal program.

The escalation clause in the longer program gives the Secretary the discretion to increase the number of Y-visas by as much as 10 percent or 15 percent each year. According to some estimates, this means that in 10 years well over 3.4 million foreign workers could come into the United States through the longer Y-visa program.

I am concerned about the impact on our economy and our country if such a substantial number of visas were to be issued. Senator Bingaman has an amendment that would eliminate the escalator and reduce the cap to permit only 200,000 Y-visas each year to be issued under the longer program. I am a cosponsor of the Bingaman amendment and I voted for it last Congress.

While I agree with the grand bargain principle that temporary means temporary, I am concerned that the high cap on the longer Y-visa program and the inclusion of the escalator means that the numbers of temporary workers coming in through this program are just too high.

But with the adoption of the Bingaman amendment I believe the temporary worker program adopts the right balance and still fulfills the principles of the ``grand bargain.''

Need for Agricultural Labor

In addition to these important principles that were developed as part of the ``grand bargain'', the bipartisan bill contains two more important provisions: the DREAM Act and AgJOBS.

Last Congress, Senators Craig, Kennedy, and I repeatedly tried to pass AgJOBS. This bill reforms the current H-2A agricultural temporary worker program and creates a path to legalization for undocumented farm workers currently in the U.S.

There is no industry that is suffering more from a labor shortage than agriculture. Foreign workers make up as much as 90 percent of the work force and over half of the foreign workers are undocumented--as many as 1.5 million.

But for years now we have heard from farmers and growers that they can not get the labor force needed to harvest their crops.

California growers tell me that their labor forces are already down 30 percent this year. For example, Larry Stonebarger, a cherry packer in Stockton, CA, has said that his packing house only has 650 workers, instead of 1100 he needs.

California provides a vital part of our Nation's food source. Half of this country's fruits are grown in California and, in fact, California is the only U.S. producer of almonds, figs, kiwi fruit, olives, and raisins. The importance of having locally grown produce cannot be underestimated.

This Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the Food and Drug Administration detained 107 food imports from China at U.S. ports just last month. They found dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical; mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides; juices and fruits rejected as ``filthy''; and prunes tinted with chemical dyes not approved for human consumption. This situation is unacceptable. But, amazingly, as we fight to keep out foreign produce that is not protected by safety and quality controls, our own immigration policies undermine the ability of U.S. growers to produce high quality fruits and vegetables right here in our own country.

The reality is, if there are not enough farm workers to harvest the crops in the United States, we will end up relying on foreign countries to provide our food. This is not good for our economy or for ensuring that Americans are receiving safe and healthy foods.

The best way to avoid this outcome is to ensure that American farmers and growers have the workers they need to harvest the crops, and the best way to ensure we have a stable agriculture labor force is to pass AgJOBS.

Our bill will stabilize the labor shortage on our farms by allowing undocumented farm workers who have worked in agriculture and agree to continue to work in agriculture for 3 to 5 years to earn a Z-A visa and eventually a green card. This will create a path to earn legal status for those ag workers already in the country.

Secondly, AgJOBS will streamline the H-2A program so that it is usable, so that growers and farmers can have access to a consistent supply of temporary workers in the future.

AgJOBS is a bipartisan bill that needs to be enacted to ensure that farmers, growers, and farm workers can continue to provide Americans home-grown, safe and healthy produce.

Immigration reform is certainly a difficult area to tackle, but this bill strikes the right balance and reflects the best thinking on how to accommodate all the various concerns and interests.

While it is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize, it is harder to stand up, take on the tough issues, make the hard decisions and do what is right to fix our immigration system. I want to commend Senators Kennedy, Specter, Salazar, and Kyl for their hard work in undertaking this difficult issue and crafting this important legislation.

This is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill, and it is a bill that I hope the Senate will pass.

Amendment No. 1146 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1146, and I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Martinez as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. President, about 6 years ago, I was sitting at home and I was watching television. What I saw was, I believe, happening in Seattle. It was a 14-year-old Chinese youngster who had come to this country in a container. Her parents died in the container. She had survived. She had been in a detention facility for 7 months prior to coming before the judge. What I saw on television were tears streaming down her face, her hands in cuffs, and the chain went around her waist. She was unable to wipe away her tears. I thought this was very strange, something really must be wrong.

I found out that she is not alone. There are 7,000 unaccompanied youngsters who come to this country every year. Many of them--at least up to a recent point--were held in detention facilities for unlimited periods of time. They don't speak the language, they have no friends, they have no guardians, and they have no one to represent them. Often, they are sexually abused. It is a real problem.

This amendment is the same as a bill that passed the Senate last year by unanimous consent. There are a few changes, and those changes remove provisions that were contained in the previous version that are no longer necessary because of changes in agency practices to bring this bill in line with other laws, and to require promulgation of regulations and reporting of statistics on children affected by this bill.

Now, in the Homeland Security Act, the responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children was transferred from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement. This amendment provides guidance and instruction to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice, for how to handle the custody, release, family reunification, and the detention of unaccompanied alien children.

The amendment clarifies that any child who was deemed to be a national security risk, or who has committed a serious crime, will remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice and will not be released to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. For those who pose no danger to themselves or others, the amendment requires that the children be placed in the least restrictive setting possible, and it defines what those settings are.

This is the order of preference: One, licensed family foster care; two, small group care; three, sheltered care; four, residential treatment center; five, secured detention. So the least restrictive place for these children--remember, in any given year, there are a substantial number of these children. The amendment also would establish minimum standards for this custody or, where appropriate, detention of these children, including making sure they have access to medical care, mental health care, some access to phones, legal services, interpreters, and supervision by professionals trained to work with these children.

I am delighted that Senator Martinez is a cosponsor, and I hope he will come to the floor because I believe he just said to me he found himself in a similar situation. I mentioned to him a case with which we are all familiar, Elian Gonzalez, who landed on the shores of Florida, whose mother drowned trying to get here. He had relatives in Florida. Florida has moved to create certain centers where these children are, in fact, secure, but many States have not.

The amendment also requires that wherever possible, these children are returned to their place of origin if there is a family member who can receive them. So a juvenile is sent home if there is a suitable placement for that child. If not, another appropriate placement must be secured for that child.

I think this legislation is very good legislation. As I said, it has passed the Senate before. We have amended it to comply with bills that have passed the Senate, and I am very hopeful that this amendment might even pass by unanimous consent today.

I will not ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

I do not see Senator Martinez in the Chamber at this time, so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, during the month of May we celebrate Asian Pacific Islander American Heritage Month. I would like to join the Nation in honoring the many contributions of Americans of Asian Pacific Islander descent and pay tribute to their efforts in strengthening and nourishing our history, commerce, cultural identity, and resolve.

This month-long tribute would not be complete without recognizing the visionaries who founded Asian Pacific Islander American Heritage Month: U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, former U.S. Senator Spark Matsunaga, former Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, and former U.S. Representative Frank Horton. As a result of their steadfast leadership, a joint resolution established Asian Pacific American Heritage Week in 1978, and the celebration was later expanded to an entire month in 1992.

This celebration takes place in May to mark the first Japanese immigrants' arrival in America in 1843, as well as the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 which would not have been finished without the hard work and dedication of Chinese laborers.

This month is also a time to honor the Japanese-American survivors of the forced internment camps established during World War II. The internment of Japanese Americans during

World War II was a grim chapter in America's history. But by sustaining this history, we can hope to prevent a similar travesty from occurring.

That is why it was so important to designate Tule Lake as a National Historic Landmark within the lifetimes of the few surviving Japanese- American internees, before many of their stories were lost. And thanks to the efforts of Interior Secretary Gale Norton, the Tule Lake Segregation Center will help future generations understand the pain and suffering that Japanese Americans endured during World War II.

Despite these hardships, members of the Asian Pacific Islander community have continued to take positions of leadership and have worked hard to secure a brighter future for all.

Today, California boasts 20 elected officials of Asian Pacific Islander heritage. There are now nine Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the State legislature; four on the State board of equalization, including John Chiang as the State controller; and a number of others in local government. A new generation of leaders has emerged with a vision of a politically empowered Asian Pacific Islander American electorate.

Additionally, over 62,000 Asian Pacific Islander Americans are on active duty in the military, and nearly 8,000 are deployed across the world to fight terrorism. And Asian Pacific Islander Americans are among the thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives for our country.

The United States draws great strength from the diversity of this population. At present, Asian Pacific Islander Americans constitute one of the fastest growing minority communities in the United States. And California is home to the greatest number of Asian Pacific Islander Americans. In fact, there are over 13 million Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the Nation, with more than 4.5 million living in California.

As the second largest ethnic minority group in California, Asian Pacific Islander heritage continues to enrich our State with famous enclaves such as San Francisco's Chinatown, Los Angeles' Koreatown, Westminster's Little Saigon, and the city of Artesia's Little India.

We must recognize that the Asian Pacific Islander American community is diverse, not only in language, culture, and foods but in education and socioeconomic levels as well. That is why it is so important to provide talented students who have clearly embraced the American dream the incentive to take the path toward being a responsible, contributing member in our civic society.

I have cosponsored the DREAM Act of 2007 to give undocumented high school students who wish to attend college or serve in the Armed Forces an opportunity to adjust to a lawful status and pursue these goals. If it becomes law, the DREAM Act would help Asian Pacific Islander Americans and others triumph over adversity.

As future generations of Asian Pacific Islander Americans continue to strive for excellence in our educational system, economy, and communities, I am pleased to honor and distinguish the many triumphs and accomplishments of the Asian Pacific Islander American community and their role in shaping our Nation's identity.

Madam President, I rise today to offer my support for the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Last year, under the leadership of the President and his party, Congress failed to pass a budget resolution. The result was a failed budget process from start to finish, and Congress adjourned without passing 10 of 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2007.

Under Democratic leadership, the Senate passed a continuing resolution that funded fiscal year 2007 Government programs and sent an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to the President to give our troops over $95 billion in vital support.

I was disappointed that the President chose to veto the Appropriations bill, which called for benchmarks for the Iraqi government and funded our troops at a level higher than his initial request. But the Democratic majority signaled its willingness to fund the troops and fill the gaps left by the Republican Congress.

Now the Senate has taken the next step toward fiscal responsibility. We have a sensible fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. The $2.9 billion budget in fiscal year 2008 projects revenues expected to total $14.828 trillion over 5 years, only 2.1 percent above the President's expected revenues of $14.826 trillion.

This resolution corrects many of the misplaced priorities of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress.

These misplaced priorities include over $1 trillion in tax cuts, tax cuts that will cost $3 trillion more if extended over the next 10 years.

When President Clinton left office, the national debt was projected to be eliminated by 2010. These misplaced priorities created a $248 billion deficit this year, and an $8.9 trillion debt.

This budget resolution restores funding for over 141 programs slated for cuts or elimination by the President in his budget proposal. These were painful cuts that we have seen year after year under the Republican majority.

The proposed cuts were to programs vital to Californians and the American people. Programs like the Community Development Block Grant, Community Oriented Policing Services, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. These do not sound to me like frivolous programs.

Unlike the President's budget proposal, this budget will create a surplus in 2012 and is near balance a year before that. This budget refocuses our priorities, extending the middle class tax-cuts and alternative minimum tax relief, and increasing veterans' and children's health care funding.

In fact, this budget provides over $43 billion for veterans' programs, $3.6 billion more than the President requested for 2008 and the largest increase ever provided for veterans. This is in accordance with a request of four leading veterans groups and a recommendation from the American Legion.

It also provides up to $50 billion to expand SCHIP coverage for children eligible for the program. Both of these increases help the people most vulnerable and most in need.

This budget restores a fiscally responsible pay-go rule that requires offsets for new spending or expensive tax cuts.

This budget adds $9.5 billion to help fund education, including higher education, to help increase the competitiveness of our students in an increasingly globalized world. We know there is a problem with education in the United States, and this budget looks to address it.

This budget allows for the committees to secure increased funding for programs like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare, Medicaid, middle-class tax relief, education, alternative energies, and other important priorities.

It also allows for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, a provision I and my colleague Senator Boxer requested. This broadly supported bill will help bring about tremendous progress in the restoration of a waterway vital to the state of California, and the reserve fund will help ensure that we fund the restoration in the correct manner.

This budget is not perfect, and I am deeply concerned about the long- term fiscal implications of irresponsible tax cuts and a seemingly endless war. We are faced with a tremendous wall of debt, created by misplaced priorities and poor planning.

We must now turn to reversing the damage. This problem will not fix itself. We need to act now to reduce our budget deficit and pay down the debt.

The elimination of the deficit will not happen in one year, but will take years of careful planning and prioritization to ensure the best return for our Federal dollars. But I am encouraged that this budget will both fund the most beneficial programs and start us on the path of fiscal recovery.

Congress faced many tough choices in crafting this budget, and we have a long and difficult road ahead.

The budget resolution cannot provide permanent alternative minimum tax relief or even fully fund the most critical programs.

But it is a start. It refocuses our priorities. And it begins to reverse the years of damage.

I encourage my Democratic and Republican colleagues to consider the responsibility that the American public has given us. A responsibility to act in the best interest of this Nation. To pass a sensible and reasonable budget, and to use that budget as we craft and pass the appropriations bills in a reasonable amount of time. This budget fits that charge, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to maintain the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center campus for the exclusive use of America's Veterans.

This legislation is a companion to an identical bill introduced by Congressman Waxman in the House earlier this month.

The bill would:

Prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, from issuing enhanced-use lease agreements on the West Los Angeles VA property; expand the scope of the Cranston Act, which already prohibits the disposal of land and the use of enhanced-use leases on 109 acres, to cover the entire 388-acre West Los Angeles VA property; prohibit the VA from exchanging, trading, auctioning or transferring any land connected to the West Los Angeles VA; require that a master plan related to the West Los Angeles VA property be completed no later than 1 year after this legislation is enacted; prohibit the VA from receiving funding to enact the provisions of a master plan for the West Los Angeles VA without first receiving Congressional authorization; and establish a public advisory committee, consisting of federally elected representatives, local elected officials, local Veterans, and community members to provide input on the master plan.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions previously taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

In March, I joined with my colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson, strongly objecting to recent decisions made by the VA relating to the West Los Angeles VA facility and land.

For example, the VA has signed sharing agreements to allow an Enterprise-

Rent-A-Car facility to operate on the VA land. The VA also continues to film on the property and recently allowed Fox Studios to construct a set storage building there.

In 1996, a 65,000-seat NFL Football stadium was proposed for the open space on the West Los Angeles VA land until Congress passed a resolution to prohibit this action.

This legislation also ensures that the VA never issues an enhanced- use lease agreement on the West Los Angeles VA property that would have little or nothing to do with direct veterans services.

The VA now has a number of other effective tools at its disposal to provide services directly to veterans, including sharing agreements and existing legislation to address homeless veterans' needs.

If the VA is already exceeding the scope of its sharing agreements, it is likely to also pursue enhanced-use leases for developing the property. Enhanced-use leases are disposal tools and should not be permitted on the West Los Angeles VA land, as the community and local veterans overwhelmingly oppose them.

Notably, Congress mandated that the VA create a Land Use master plan for the entire West Los Angeles Veterans' property in 1998, Public Law 105-368.

Last year, the Senate approved language in the fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills, including MILCON/VA, were ultimately packaged together in a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 388 acres of land were donated to the Government in 1888 specifically for serving and supporting our Nation's veterans and I strongly believe they should remain that way.

This bill would make sure that this happens.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to maintain the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center campus for the exclusive use of America's Veterans.

This legislation is a companion to an identical bill introduced by Congressman Waxman in the House earlier this month.

The bill would:

Prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, from issuing enhanced-use lease agreements on the West Los Angeles VA property; expand the scope of the Cranston Act, which already prohibits the disposal of land and the use of enhanced-use leases on 109 acres, to cover the entire 388-acre West Los Angeles VA property; prohibit the VA from exchanging, trading, auctioning or transferring any land connected to the West Los Angeles VA; require that a master plan related to the West Los Angeles VA property be completed no later than 1 year after this legislation is enacted; prohibit the VA from receiving funding to enact the provisions of a master plan for the West Los Angeles VA without first receiving Congressional authorization; and establish a public advisory committee, consisting of federally elected representatives, local elected officials, local Veterans, and community members to provide input on the master plan.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions previously taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

In March, I joined with my colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson, strongly objecting to recent decisions made by the VA relating to the West Los Angeles VA facility and land.

For example, the VA has signed sharing agreements to allow an Enterprise-

Rent-A-Car facility to operate on the VA land. The VA also continues to film on the property and recently allowed Fox Studios to construct a set storage building there.

In 1996, a 65,000-seat NFL Football stadium was proposed for the open space on the West Los Angeles VA land until Congress passed a resolution to prohibit this action.

This legislation also ensures that the VA never issues an enhanced- use lease agreement on the West Los Angeles VA property that would have little or nothing to do with direct veterans services.

The VA now has a number of other effective tools at its disposal to provide services directly to veterans, including sharing agreements and existing legislation to address homeless veterans' needs.

If the VA is already exceeding the scope of its sharing agreements, it is likely to also pursue enhanced-use leases for developing the property. Enhanced-use leases are disposal tools and should not be permitted on the West Los Angeles VA land, as the community and local veterans overwhelmingly oppose them.

Notably, Congress mandated that the VA create a Land Use master plan for the entire West Los Angeles Veterans' property in 1998, Public Law 105-368.

Last year, the Senate approved language in the fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills, including MILCON/VA, were ultimately packaged together in a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 388 acres of land were donated to the Government in 1888 specifically for serving and supporting our Nation's veterans and I strongly believe they should remain that way.

This bill would make sure that this happens.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Boxer in opposition to the Coburn amendment. This amendment limits our ability to appropriate funding to projects in our State, and I would ask all Senators to vote against the amendment.

My colleagues may remember that during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, we had an extended debate over flood control projects in the bill for California because Senator Coburn offered an amendment to strip them out of the bill. I understand that yesterday, Senator Coburn acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the Sacramento River Bank project, which he now believes was legitimate emergency funding. However, he has now offered another amendment affecting California and this same project.

Senator Coburn's amendment would require that the Army Corps complete its work on the Sacramento riverbank flood control project before it can begin any work on the Imperial Beach replenishment project. These two projects are separated by 500 miles and have no relation to each other, except that both protect homes and families.

I would like to briefly discuss these two projects. The Sacramento river bank flood protection project is a long-term levee restoration project. The project area is along 210 miles of the Sacramento River that is constantly at risk of erosion. Areas protected by the levees comprise over 1 million acres, 50 communities, $38 billion worth of improvements, and approximately 2.3 million people.

The Corps of Engineers is dangerously close to the ceiling set in the current authorization, with many more projects to be done. Senator Boxer and I support language in this bill to increase the Corps' authorization by another 80,000 linear feet. It will be several years before the Corps will reach that threshold if we are able to fund the project at full capability annually.

Yesterday, Senator Coburn referred to our discussion last year and that I had said that life and property lay in the balance with the restoration of these levees. I would say to my colleagues that statement also holds true on other projects to protect homes in a different part of my State that Senator Coburn will inhibit with this amendment.

Imperial Beach is a small city adjacent to the U.S./Mexico border and just south of San Diego Bay and the naval installations on Coronado. Its beach, the Silver Strand, is losing 100,000 cubic yards of sand per year, corresponding to a loss of 6.6 feet of beach.

So much shoreline has been lost that there is no longer dry beach at high tide, leaving only a small embankment between the ocean and homes. At the current retreat rate, the shoreline could reach homes within the year. A high-tide storm event in Imperial Beach could affect 3,000 homes within 3 blocks of the coast. Already these homes have experienced flooding and structural damage and the soil is highly erosive and receding--the problem in Imperial Beach is now, and we cannot wait years to address it.

The problem is that the beach is no longer the recipient of sand from its natural sources. First, there is a lack of sediment transfer from the Tijuana River because of three dams, two on the American side and one on the Mexican side, which have stopped the historical flow of sediment to the shoreline. Second, the Army Corps-built jetty that protects San Diego harbor also disrupts the flow of sand.

Yesterday, Senator Coburn stated that he believes the replenishment of this beach is a State responsibility. As we all know, all of these projects are cost-shared with the State or localities involved. The State of California already has $4.2 million on the table for this project as soon as it is authorized. So the State's commitment is there.

The residents and local government are also doing their fair share to shoulder the costs. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that every dollar spent avoiding storm damage through beach nourishment will save taxpayers close to $2.00. The total net benefit this project provides due to annual costs from structural damage due to erosion, wave attack, or inundation costs, utility relocation costs, land loss, cleanup costs and other items related to the loss of sand will be at least $1.8 million.

There are hundreds of very important projects authorized in this bill, and many States have multiple projects. This amendment would set the dangerous precedent of requiring vital projects to wait until other projects in the same State are completed. Not only does this have the potential to increase Federal costs if we have to respond to disasters that could have been prevented, but it removes our discretion to evaluate projects independently, regardless of where they are located.

Senator Coburn has now decided that securing levees in my State is a high priority. It certainly is. However, I do not agree with him that homes and families behind river levees are more important than homes and families behind an ocean beach. I hope that my colleagues will join with us to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Attorney Local Residency Restoration Act along with Senators Schumer, Baucus, and Tester.

Simply put, this legislation would eliminate the other language that the Department of Justice had inserted into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization dealing with U.S. attorneys.

The first provision added allowed the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys to vacancies indefinitely without Senate confirmation, and I authored a bill to restore the law to require interim appointments by the Attorney General for only 120 days, and then the district courts can appoint the interim U.S. attorney if a permanent replacement has not been nominated and confirmed.

This bill has passed this body, and I hope will be signed into law soon.

Today, I am offering this legislation to restore the residency requirement for sitting U.S. attorneys.

Before the change, the law required that U.S. attorneys live within his district while serving. It seems logical that the U.S. attorney should live in the district that he is heading.

However, the Department of Justice added language in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that allows a U.S. attorney to live outside of his district if the Attorney General assigns dual or additional responsibilities to him.

While U.S. attorneys in both Democratic and Republican administrations have served dual roles in the past, this administration has once again abused its new authority--this time by placing numerous U.S. attorneys in full-time positions throughout the Department of Justice, at times in a manner that allows the Department to avoid Senate confirmation.

In fact, Dennis Boyd, executive director of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, which represents current Federal prosecutors, has said, ``I can't think of a time when there's been this many U.S. attorneys doing double duty at one time.''

Currently, there are several U.S. attorneys, that we know about, who are serving in a second full-time position here in Washington, while still retaining their responsibilities back in their districts. For example, Michael J. Sullivan, the U.S. attorney in Boston, has been serving as the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Washington for the past 6 months, a position that requires Senate confirmation;

Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, is also the acting director of the Office of Violence Against Women, a position that requires Senate confirmation, and prior to that she served as Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys; and Kevin O'Connor, U.S. attorney in Connecticut, is also serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney General coordinating antigang policies.

Of course, the most well-known example is William Mercer, U.S. attorney in Montana. Mr. Mercer has been effectively absent for nearly 2 years from his State. First, serving as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and now working as Acting Associate Attorney General, another position that requires Senate confirmation. In fact, through staff interviews we have learned that he is only in his State 3 or 4 days a month.

Moreover, his consistent absenteeism was having such a negative effect on the district that it led to the point where U.S. District Chief Judge Donald Molloy of Billings, MT, felt compelled to write to the Attorney General on October 20, 2005, to complain. In that letter, Chief Judge Molloy wrote that Mr. Mercer's dual roles have led to ``a lack of leadership'' in the Montana office and created ``untoward difficulties for the court'' and for career prosecutors. Chief Judge Molloy also wrote that Mr. Mercer was violating Federal law because he ``no longer resides in Montana'' and instead was living with his family in the Washington, DC, area.

These facts on their own are cause for alarm.

However, what is even more disconcerting is the way that Mr. Mercer and the Department of Justice have handled this situation.

We know that the Attorney General responded to Chief Judge Molloy in a letter on November 10, 2005, stating that Mr. Mercer ``is in compliance with the residency requirement'' under Federal law because he ``is domiciled in Montana, returns there on a regular basis, and will live there full-time as soon as his temporary assignment is completed.''

We also know through interviews of DOJ staff that Mr. Mercer worked with Will Moschella and Senate staff during November 2005 to insert the residency exemption language into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, the response from the Attorney General to Chief Judge Molloy occurred on the very same day that DOJ asked for the language to be inserted into the PATRIOT Act.

All this resulted in a change in the law, thus eviscerating the conflict.

However, even beyond this turn of events, what is truly breathtaking about this administration's actions with regard to Mr. Mercer is that in trying to defend its actions to force numerous U.S. attorneys to resign from office, this same Justice Department criticized David Iglesias for being ``an absentee landlord.''

I firmly believe, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You can't one day try to change the law to make it easier for U.S. attorneys to serve in 2 full-time jobs at the same time and then the next day fire someone for not being fully present in his job, especially when the absence is much more limited and based on service to the country in the naval reserves.

While there are times when U.S. attorneys may be relied upon to fill in temporarily, changing the law to ensure that they can hold two full- time jobs is unacceptable.

Serving as U.S. attorney is a full-time job, and each district throughout this country deserves to have the best qualified person in the district focused on the tasks at hand.

I am quite certain that there are many fine first assistant U.S. attorneys capable of stepping up to fill the shoes of an absent U.S. attorney; however, these are not the individuals the President has nominated and the Senate has confirmed to serve those positions.

These districts deserve nothing less than the undivided attention of their Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Attorney Local Residency Restoration Act along with Senators Schumer, Baucus, and Tester.

Simply put, this legislation would eliminate the other language that the Department of Justice had inserted into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization dealing with U.S. attorneys.

The first provision added allowed the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys to vacancies indefinitely without Senate confirmation, and I authored a bill to restore the law to require interim appointments by the Attorney General for only 120 days, and then the district courts can appoint the interim U.S. attorney if a permanent replacement has not been nominated and confirmed.

This bill has passed this body, and I hope will be signed into law soon.

Today, I am offering this legislation to restore the residency requirement for sitting U.S. attorneys.

Before the change, the law required that U.S. attorneys live within his district while serving. It seems logical that the U.S. attorney should live in the district that he is heading.

However, the Department of Justice added language in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that allows a U.S. attorney to live outside of his district if the Attorney General assigns dual or additional responsibilities to him.

While U.S. attorneys in both Democratic and Republican administrations have served dual roles in the past, this administration has once again abused its new authority--this time by placing numerous U.S. attorneys in full-time positions throughout the Department of Justice, at times in a manner that allows the Department to avoid Senate confirmation.

In fact, Dennis Boyd, executive director of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, which represents current Federal prosecutors, has said, ``I can't think of a time when there's been this many U.S. attorneys doing double duty at one time.''

Currently, there are several U.S. attorneys, that we know about, who are serving in a second full-time position here in Washington, while still retaining their responsibilities back in their districts. For example, Michael J. Sullivan, the U.S. attorney in Boston, has been serving as the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Washington for the past 6 months, a position that requires Senate confirmation;

Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, is also the acting director of the Office of Violence Against Women, a position that requires Senate confirmation, and prior to that she served as Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys; and Kevin O'Connor, U.S. attorney in Connecticut, is also serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney General coordinating antigang policies.

Of course, the most well-known example is William Mercer, U.S. attorney in Montana. Mr. Mercer has been effectively absent for nearly 2 years from his State. First, serving as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and now working as Acting Associate Attorney General, another position that requires Senate confirmation. In fact, through staff interviews we have learned that he is only in his State 3 or 4 days a month.

Moreover, his consistent absenteeism was having such a negative effect on the district that it led to the point where U.S. District Chief Judge Donald Molloy of Billings, MT, felt compelled to write to the Attorney General on October 20, 2005, to complain. In that letter, Chief Judge Molloy wrote that Mr. Mercer's dual roles have led to ``a lack of leadership'' in the Montana office and created ``untoward difficulties for the court'' and for career prosecutors. Chief Judge Molloy also wrote that Mr. Mercer was violating Federal law because he ``no longer resides in Montana'' and instead was living with his family in the Washington, DC, area.

These facts on their own are cause for alarm.

However, what is even more disconcerting is the way that Mr. Mercer and the Department of Justice have handled this situation.

We know that the Attorney General responded to Chief Judge Molloy in a letter on November 10, 2005, stating that Mr. Mercer ``is in compliance with the residency requirement'' under Federal law because he ``is domiciled in Montana, returns there on a regular basis, and will live there full-time as soon as his temporary assignment is completed.''

We also know through interviews of DOJ staff that Mr. Mercer worked with Will Moschella and Senate staff during November 2005 to insert the residency exemption language into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, the response from the Attorney General to Chief Judge Molloy occurred on the very same day that DOJ asked for the language to be inserted into the PATRIOT Act.

All this resulted in a change in the law, thus eviscerating the conflict.

However, even beyond this turn of events, what is truly breathtaking about this administration's actions with regard to Mr. Mercer is that in trying to defend its actions to force numerous U.S. attorneys to resign from office, this same Justice Department criticized David Iglesias for being ``an absentee landlord.''

I firmly believe, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You can't one day try to change the law to make it easier for U.S. attorneys to serve in 2 full-time jobs at the same time and then the next day fire someone for not being fully present in his job, especially when the absence is much more limited and based on service to the country in the naval reserves.

While there are times when U.S. attorneys may be relied upon to fill in temporarily, changing the law to ensure that they can hold two full- time jobs is unacceptable.

Serving as U.S. attorney is a full-time job, and each district throughout this country deserves to have the best qualified person in the district focused on the tasks at hand.

I am quite certain that there are many fine first assistant U.S. attorneys capable of stepping up to fill the shoes of an absent U.S. attorney; however, these are not the individuals the President has nominated and the Senate has confirmed to serve those positions.

These districts deserve nothing less than the undivided attention of their Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on Nominations to the Federal Election Commission.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act of 2007, a bill seeking to ensure that Native American tribes follow the regular process under Federal law prior to establishing and operating gaming facilities.

I believe this approach provides a good step forward as it has the support of both the local community and the Lytton tribe.

I am pleased to have worked closely with representatives of the local community, such as California Assemblymember Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, as well as my colleague Senator Specter in crafting this piece of legislation.

I introduced similar legislation in the 108th and 109th Congresses, but these bills would have effectively required closure of the casino operations, until a point when and if the Lytton successfully completed the two-part determination process.

This legislation, however, stalled. The legislation introduced today breaks that stalemate and seeks to prevent a massive expansion of gaming in the Bay Area.

The bill requires that the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians follow critical oversight guidelines laid out in Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, before engaging in Class III gaming.

This legislation would amend language inserted into the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000.

That language mandated that the Secretary of Interior take a card club and adjacent parking lot in the San Francisco Bay Area into trust for the Lytton tribe as their reservation and backdate the acquisition to October 17, 1988, or pre-IGRA.

This backdating was done expressly with the goal of allowing the Lytton tribe to circumvent IGRA's ``two-part determination'' process, an important step that requires both Secretarial and Gubernatorial approval, in addition to consultation with nearby tribes and the local community and its representatives.

The legislation that I have introduced would simply return the Lytton tribe to the same status as all other tribes seeking to pursue Class III, or Nevada-style gaming, on lands acquired after the passage of IGRA in 1988.

It would allow the tribe to continue operating its Class II gaming facility provided it follows all IGRA regulations regarding gaming on newly acquired lands going forward.

Finally, it would also preclude any expansion of the facility used by the Lytton for Class II gaming.

I would like to emphasize what the bill would not do. It would not: Remove the tribe's recognition status; Alter the trust status of the new reservation; or take away the tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the normal IGRA process.

This legislation was solely crafted to restore IGRA's rightful oversight of the gaming process, just as Congress intended.

Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides clear guidelines for addressing the issue of gaming on so-called ``newly- acquired'' lands, or lands that have been taken into trust since the enactment of IGRA in 1988.

Most importantly, in my opinion, IGRA's ``two-part determination'' process provides for both Federal and State approval, while protecting the rights of nearby tribes and local communities.

Circumventing this process creates a variety of serious and critical multi-jurisdictional issues, issues which can negatively affect the lives of ordinary citizens and deprive local and tribal governments of their ability to effectively represent their communities.

Without passage of this bill, the Lytton could take the former card club and the adjacent parking lot that is now their reservation and turn it into a large gambling complex outside the regulations set up by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004.

While the tribe announced that it was dropping its pursuit of a sizable casino, it could reverse these plans at any time and proceed with Class III gaming without first going through the regular process.

Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where tribal gaming is permitted.

I do not think it is asking too much to require that the Lytton be subject to the regulatory and approval processes applicable to all other tribes by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

This bill would do just that.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lytton Gaming Oversight Act of 2007, a bill seeking to ensure that Native American tribes follow the regular process under Federal law prior to establishing and operating gaming facilities.

I believe this approach provides a good step forward as it has the support of both the local community and the Lytton tribe.

I am pleased to have worked closely with representatives of the local community, such as California Assemblymember Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, as well as my colleague Senator Specter in crafting this piece of legislation.

I introduced similar legislation in the 108th and 109th Congresses, but these bills would have effectively required closure of the casino operations, until a point when and if the Lytton successfully completed the two-part determination process.

This legislation, however, stalled. The legislation introduced today breaks that stalemate and seeks to prevent a massive expansion of gaming in the Bay Area.

The bill requires that the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians follow critical oversight guidelines laid out in Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, before engaging in Class III gaming.

This legislation would amend language inserted into the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000.

That language mandated that the Secretary of Interior take a card club and adjacent parking lot in the San Francisco Bay Area into trust for the Lytton tribe as their reservation and backdate the acquisition to October 17, 1988, or pre-IGRA.

This backdating was done expressly with the goal of allowing the Lytton tribe to circumvent IGRA's ``two-part determination'' process, an important step that requires both Secretarial and Gubernatorial approval, in addition to consultation with nearby tribes and the local community and its representatives.

The legislation that I have introduced would simply return the Lytton tribe to the same status as all other tribes seeking to pursue Class III, or Nevada-style gaming, on lands acquired after the passage of IGRA in 1988.

It would allow the tribe to continue operating its Class II gaming facility provided it follows all IGRA regulations regarding gaming on newly acquired lands going forward.

Finally, it would also preclude any expansion of the facility used by the Lytton for Class II gaming.

I would like to emphasize what the bill would not do. It would not: Remove the tribe's recognition status; Alter the trust status of the new reservation; or take away the tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the normal IGRA process.

This legislation was solely crafted to restore IGRA's rightful oversight of the gaming process, just as Congress intended.

Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides clear guidelines for addressing the issue of gaming on so-called ``newly- acquired'' lands, or lands that have been taken into trust since the enactment of IGRA in 1988.

Most importantly, in my opinion, IGRA's ``two-part determination'' process provides for both Federal and State approval, while protecting the rights of nearby tribes and local communities.

Circumventing this process creates a variety of serious and critical multi-jurisdictional issues, issues which can negatively affect the lives of ordinary citizens and deprive local and tribal governments of their ability to effectively represent their communities.

Without passage of this bill, the Lytton could take the former card club and the adjacent parking lot that is now their reservation and turn it into a large gambling complex outside the regulations set up by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In fact, this is exactly what was proposed in the summer of 2004.

While the tribe announced that it was dropping its pursuit of a sizable casino, it could reverse these plans at any time and proceed with Class III gaming without first going through the regular process.

Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where tribal gaming is permitted.

I do not think it is asking too much to require that the Lytton be subject to the regulatory and approval processes applicable to all other tribes by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

This bill would do just that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet

aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the

transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the

weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar

aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.

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

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

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

miles and can take down commercial airliners is reason enough

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

concern to the law enforcement community that these weapons

of war are capable of penetrating our special operations

vehicles, tactical equipment and helicopters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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