Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Durbin and Kennedy in introducing the Firearms by Foreign Convicts Clarification Act. This bill would close a loophole that exists in current law, by stating that people convicted of foreign felonies and domestic violence, just like people convicted of similar American crimes, cannot possess firearms in the United States.

I imagine that most Americans may be surprised, as I was, to learn that foreign felons actually have greater gun rights than American citizens who have been convicted of felonies and domestic violence in our own courts. Our country has been trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals for at least the last 40 years, since the landmark Gun Control Act of 1968. Unfortunately, in 2005 the Supreme Court created a gaping loophole in this longstanding felon-in-possession law.

That happened in the case of Small v. United States, where a majority of the Court essentially held that foreign convictions don't count for the purpose of being a felon in possession of a firearm. This was not because the Justices somehow thought that exempting foreign convictions from our felon-in-possession laws was wise public policy. In fact, as Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.''

The problem in Small was that a majority of the Court felt that our 1968 law had not been written clearly enough. Although Congress had said that a person convicted of a felony ``in any court'' could not possess a firearm, the majority said that this phrase, ``any court,'' might have been meant to apply only to ``any American court'' rather than what the legislation actually said--``any court.''

The Federal felon-in-possession law had already been applied to foreign felons in several prosecutions since 1968, but the Court found unpersuasive both this history and the statute's express language. Dissenting Justices Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy accused the majority of creating a novel canon of legal construction that will ``wreak havoc'' with established rules of extraterritorial construction. But whatever we may think of the Court's analysis, there is no doubt that the Small decision is now the law of the land. And if we want to close this legal loophole, it is clear that we need to pass some clarifying legislation. The bill I introduce today would do just that.

Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18, the definitions section, would be amended to state clearly that ``[t]he term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act, where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law, the bill would expand these terms to include convictions of foreign offenses and offenses under foreign law.

In other words, the bill would make clear that if someone is convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a gun if that conviction had been handed

down in the U.S., the same laws relating to gun possession will be applied. The only exception will be if there is reason to think the conviction entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid.

In that situation, this bill would create an exemption, allowing a person convicted in a foreign jurisdiction to challenge its validity. Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' for purposes of the felon-in-possession laws, if the foreign conviction either (1) resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or (2) if the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the United States.

I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. And in any event, it is clear that we should not keep in place a policy in which the tail wags the dog. The current state of the law is that we essentially treat every foreign conviction as invalid. And that is simply illogical.

An example of why we need to fix this law occurred in 2001, when U.S. agents with bulletproof vests raided the New York hotel room of suspect Rohan Ingram. Ingram was found with 13 firearms and had an extensive criminal background, including at least 18 convictions for crimes such as assault and use of firearms during crimes. Law enforcement had flagged him as ``armed and dangerous.'' But because all of his convictions had occurred in foreign courts, his felon-in-possession charge was eventually thrown out of court. That is simply not a tolerable state of affairs in a post- 9/11 world.

Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign- convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists an unlimited right to buy firearms in the United States, including even assault weapons that they might try to send to colleagues abroad, or use to develop a cache of weapons to use to kill our citizens within the United States. American citizens convicted of identical crimes at home are denied the ability to buy and possess such firearms, and the time has come to fix this loophole so that foreign convicts are placed in the same category.

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

Mr. President, as chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the symbolic handover of the historic 1507 Martin Waldseemiller Map from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to the American people. This event took place Monday at the Library of Congress.

The map is often referred to as ``America's birth certificate.'' It was designed and printed by Martin Waldseemiller, a 16th century scholar and cartographer who worked in France. This mapmaker departed from accepted knowledge of the world at that time. He portrayed, in remarkably accurate fashion, the Western Hemisphere separating two huge and separate bodies of water, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

There were 1,000 copies of the map printed from woodcuts, but only a single surviving copy exists today. The Library of Congress worked for decades to acquire this map from its owners. The map was housed for more than 350 years in the 16th century castle belonging to the family of Prince Johannes Waldburg-Wolfegg in southern Germany. The map was long thought lost, but it was rediscovered in storage in the castle in 1901.

In 1992, knowing of the Library's great interest in acquiring the map, Prince Waldburg-Wolfegg notified the Library that the German national government and the Baden-Wurttemberg state government had granted an export license. This license permitted the map, which is considered a German national treasure, to come to the Library of Congress.

The purchase of the map was accomplished through a combination of appropriated funds and matching private funds. Congress has played an important role in making this acquisition possible, as it has throughout the Library's history. Congress's first major purchase was Thomas Jefferson's library, which is the seed of the vast collections the Library holds today. Another once-in-a-lifetime purchase made possible by congressional support is the Gutenberg Bible, which is on display in the Jefferson Building.

The Library will begin displaying the map to the public in the Thomas Jefferson Building later this year. The map will be part of the Library's new visitor's experience. As an important acquisition to the Library's treasures, the map will be on view for limited periods of time as preservation standards permit.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Guantanamo has become a lightning rod for international condemnation. Both allies and enemies have decried the stories of detainee abuse and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that the individuals held at Guantanamo are legally entitled to be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions. In short, the continued use of Guantanamo is causing more damage than benefit in our war on terrorism.

The Supreme Court determined last summer that the Geneva Conventions applies to Guantanamo detainees, and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in response. There remain court challenges and policy questions as to whether the proceedings at Guantanamo are now legal. What is clear, however, is that, whether legal or not, Guantanamo is harming our national interests.

This is not solely my view.

Secretary of Defense Gates testified recently before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He said, ``I came to this position believing that Guantanamo should be closed. I know that people have expressed that as a wish. The president has expressed it as a wish.'' The Secretary remarked that Guantanamo has ``a taint about it.''

According to media accounts, the current and former Secretaries of State, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, share this view.

Unfortunately, these expressions will not necessarily lead to concrete action. On March 23, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow stated that it was unlikely that the Guantanamo detention facility would close during the Bush Presidency.

That is unfortunate, but I think the way forward is now clear. It is time to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo, and it is time for the Congress to act. And so today I am proud to offer legislation to end detention operations at Guantanamo within a year.

Approximately 750 enemy combatants--including individuals believed to be Taliban fighters or al-Qaida irregulars have been sent to Guantanamo since January 11, 2002. Roughly 385 are there today, and it is estimated that only 60 to 80 of them will ever be charged. According to a Pentagon spokesman last month, another 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo despite having been cleared for transfer or release.

This is an untenable situation.

Let me be clear. I have no room in my heart for al-Qaida members or affiliates. I know full well that they would kill innocent Americans given half the chance. But the people in this administration who have made these decisions have never recognized that it is not just for the detainees' sake that we comply with U.S. and international law, it is to our benefit as well.

As Senator McCain and GEN Colin Powell have forcefully argued, we treat individuals in accordance with international law to ensure that Americans captured in battle are treated likewise.

Unfortunately, due to the administration's decision not to apply Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and to allow new interrogation techniques, there have been abuses. These have been documented, among other places, in the official report by Air Force LTG Randall Schmidt on June 9, 2005.

Ironically, use of these techniques not only turned the tide of world opinion and shocked our consciences, but they are inconsistent with producing accurate intelligence.

The second major result from mistaken administration policies has been our fall from the world's leader in the realm of ideals, not just in power.

The detentions at Guantanamo have been decried, from moral leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu to political leaders like Tony Blair.

Archbishop Tutu said, ``I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial. It is disgraceful.''

Prime Minister Blair commented that Guantanamo Bay is an ``anomaly that at some point has to be brought to an end.''

While world leaders and various offices of the United Nations have criticized Guantanamo, terrorists around the world have used it to rally new recruits. Just like the horrible scenes from Abu Ghraib, we have found evidence that the disrespect for Islam and the Koran at Guantanamo has helped breed a new generation of terrorists.

The legislation that I introduce today would close the Guantanamo detention facilities within a year of enactment.

Everyone being held at that time would have to be transitioned to an alternative legal status. There are five major options. Detainees could be transferred to a civilian or military facility in the United States and charged with a violation of U.S. or international law for prosecution in a civilian or military proceeding; transferred to a facility in the United States for continued detention, for individuals judged to be enemy combatants; transferred to any international legal tribunal that may be authorized for this purpose; transferred to their home nation or a third-party government for further processing. This would require that the Government obtain the required assurances that the detainee will not be tortured or otherwise handled in a matter against international law; or for detainees judged to pose no continuing security threat to the United States or our allies, released.

What would this accomplish?

First, and most importantly, it would end the stain on America's reputation and reiterate that we are a nation of laws and justice.

Second, moving trials to the United States, whether under the military commission process or otherwise, would enhance the credibility of those proceedings. As Secretary Gates testified, ``no matter how transparent, no matter how open the trials, if they took place at Guantanamo in the international community, they would lack credibility.''

Finally, moving detainees to the mainland would ease the logistics of trials and oversight. It would obviate the need for the government to run its own airline business shuttling Members of Congress, lawyers, reporters, and military police to Guantanamo.

Some will argue that closing Guantanamo will damage our security. Let me make clear: I am not for releasing any terrorist, any Taliban fighter, or anyone that we will have to face again on the battlefield.

We have high-security prisons and military brigs around the nation and know how to keep prisoners from harming the local population. In fact, the Justice Department has successfully convicted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef for their roles in the first World Trade Center bombing. Jose Padilla was held in a naval brig, and is currently awaiting a trial in the United States. Our military and criminal justice systems are up to this task.

Nor is it the case that moving detainees from Guantanamo will hinder our ability to gain intelligence from them. In fact, the majority of detainees are not being interrogated at Guantanamo, and almost none of them have any actionable intelligence left after imprisonment for years.

Finally, I am aware that legislation has been introduced to amend the Military Commissions Act, especially with regard to its habeas corpus provisions. I support these efforts. But legal experts have testified that moving detainees to the United States would have little impact on the Government's ability to prosecute them. The procedures of the Military Commissions Act, or any other court martial or criminal proceeding, do not depend on the location of the trial. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already held that legal process at Guantanamo is subject to U.S. law.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is our responsibility to ensure that the war on terror is being fought in a way that maximizes our ability to prevail. The situation at Guantanamo has impeded our success. It has strained our relations with key allies. It has provided fodder to our detractors. And it has dampened the national support we need to keep fighting our enemies.

After more than 5 years, it is time to close this prison. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Guantanamo has become a lightning rod for international condemnation. Both allies and enemies have decried the stories of detainee abuse and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that the individuals held at Guantanamo are legally entitled to be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions. In short, the continued use of Guantanamo is causing more damage than benefit in our war on terrorism.

The Supreme Court determined last summer that the Geneva Conventions applies to Guantanamo detainees, and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in response. There remain court challenges and policy questions as to whether the proceedings at Guantanamo are now legal. What is clear, however, is that, whether legal or not, Guantanamo is harming our national interests.

This is not solely my view.

Secretary of Defense Gates testified recently before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He said, ``I came to this position believing that Guantanamo should be closed. I know that people have expressed that as a wish. The president has expressed it as a wish.'' The Secretary remarked that Guantanamo has ``a taint about it.''

According to media accounts, the current and former Secretaries of State, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, share this view.

Unfortunately, these expressions will not necessarily lead to concrete action. On March 23, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow stated that it was unlikely that the Guantanamo detention facility would close during the Bush Presidency.

That is unfortunate, but I think the way forward is now clear. It is time to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo, and it is time for the Congress to act. And so today I am proud to offer legislation to end detention operations at Guantanamo within a year.

Approximately 750 enemy combatants--including individuals believed to be Taliban fighters or al-Qaida irregulars have been sent to Guantanamo since January 11, 2002. Roughly 385 are there today, and it is estimated that only 60 to 80 of them will ever be charged. According to a Pentagon spokesman last month, another 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo despite having been cleared for transfer or release.

This is an untenable situation.

Let me be clear. I have no room in my heart for al-Qaida members or affiliates. I know full well that they would kill innocent Americans given half the chance. But the people in this administration who have made these decisions have never recognized that it is not just for the detainees' sake that we comply with U.S. and international law, it is to our benefit as well.

As Senator McCain and GEN Colin Powell have forcefully argued, we treat individuals in accordance with international law to ensure that Americans captured in battle are treated likewise.

Unfortunately, due to the administration's decision not to apply Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and to allow new interrogation techniques, there have been abuses. These have been documented, among other places, in the official report by Air Force LTG Randall Schmidt on June 9, 2005.

Ironically, use of these techniques not only turned the tide of world opinion and shocked our consciences, but they are inconsistent with producing accurate intelligence.

The second major result from mistaken administration policies has been our fall from the world's leader in the realm of ideals, not just in power.

The detentions at Guantanamo have been decried, from moral leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu to political leaders like Tony Blair.

Archbishop Tutu said, ``I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial. It is disgraceful.''

Prime Minister Blair commented that Guantanamo Bay is an ``anomaly that at some point has to be brought to an end.''

While world leaders and various offices of the United Nations have criticized Guantanamo, terrorists around the world have used it to rally new recruits. Just like the horrible scenes from Abu Ghraib, we have found evidence that the disrespect for Islam and the Koran at Guantanamo has helped breed a new generation of terrorists.

The legislation that I introduce today would close the Guantanamo detention facilities within a year of enactment.

Everyone being held at that time would have to be transitioned to an alternative legal status. There are five major options. Detainees could be transferred to a civilian or military facility in the United States and charged with a violation of U.S. or international law for prosecution in a civilian or military proceeding; transferred to a facility in the United States for continued detention, for individuals judged to be enemy combatants; transferred to any international legal tribunal that may be authorized for this purpose; transferred to their home nation or a third-party government for further processing. This would require that the Government obtain the required assurances that the detainee will not be tortured or otherwise handled in a matter against international law; or for detainees judged to pose no continuing security threat to the United States or our allies, released.

What would this accomplish?

First, and most importantly, it would end the stain on America's reputation and reiterate that we are a nation of laws and justice.

Second, moving trials to the United States, whether under the military commission process or otherwise, would enhance the credibility of those proceedings. As Secretary Gates testified, ``no matter how transparent, no matter how open the trials, if they took place at Guantanamo in the international community, they would lack credibility.''

Finally, moving detainees to the mainland would ease the logistics of trials and oversight. It would obviate the need for the government to run its own airline business shuttling Members of Congress, lawyers, reporters, and military police to Guantanamo.

Some will argue that closing Guantanamo will damage our security. Let me make clear: I am not for releasing any terrorist, any Taliban fighter, or anyone that we will have to face again on the battlefield.

We have high-security prisons and military brigs around the nation and know how to keep prisoners from harming the local population. In fact, the Justice Department has successfully convicted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef for their roles in the first World Trade Center bombing. Jose Padilla was held in a naval brig, and is currently awaiting a trial in the United States. Our military and criminal justice systems are up to this task.

Nor is it the case that moving detainees from Guantanamo will hinder our ability to gain intelligence from them. In fact, the majority of detainees are not being interrogated at Guantanamo, and almost none of them have any actionable intelligence left after imprisonment for years.

Finally, I am aware that legislation has been introduced to amend the Military Commissions Act, especially with regard to its habeas corpus provisions. I support these efforts. But legal experts have testified that moving detainees to the United States would have little impact on the Government's ability to prosecute them. The procedures of the Military Commissions Act, or any other court martial or criminal proceeding, do not depend on the location of the trial. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already held that legal process at Guantanamo is subject to U.S. law.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is our responsibility to ensure that the war on terror is being fought in a way that maximizes our ability to prevail. The situation at Guantanamo has impeded our success. It has strained our relations with key allies. It has provided fodder to our detractors. And it has dampened the national support we need to keep fighting our enemies.

After more than 5 years, it is time to close this prison. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in 1999, when George Bush was a candidate for the Presidency and President Clinton was Commander in Chief, George Bush had this to say about American troops in Bosnia:

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the

President to explain what the exit strategy is.

Well, the Congress has been asking for an exit strategy year after year for 4 years now. In fact, President Bush has no exit strategy. So the United States is bogged down in an impossible situation: ``Shock and awe,'' followed by ineffective follow-on efforts. Today, in the fifth year of this war, the United States is enmeshed in what has become a vicious and terrifying civil war. It cannot be won through the use of American military force. This war can only be won through political accommodation between Sunni and Shia, which means only the Iraqis can settle it, which means only the Iraqi Government can settle it. To this date, they appear to be unable to do what needs to be done to stop this conflict.

So without an exit strategy, the war goes on, the killings continue, and the casualties rise. Nearly 25,000 Americans injured, with tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured, and hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes by this war. Estimates put Iraqi civilian deaths in the first 3 months of this year at more than 5,500 in the Baghdad area alone.

On Monday, two truck bombs killed nine members of the 82nd Airborne Division and wounded 20 more. It was the deadliest day of combat in the division's history since the Vietnam war.

I fear that unless Congress acts and puts forward that exit strategy, this bloodshed will continue year after year. That is intolerable.

Today, we have before us a measure that offers a solution and a strategy to fill the void left by the administration. The Iraqi supplemental spending bill responsibly funds our troops and changes the course in Iraq.

Most importantly, it sends a message to the Iraqi Government that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended, that benchmarks will measure the progress, and that political accommodation is crucial.

Under this legislation, the Iraqi Government would be judged on how it disarms militias, pursues Sunni-Shia reconciliation initiatives, establishes fair

oil-sharing laws, reforms debaathification laws, and protects the rights of minorities. This is as it should be.

This legislation ensures that our troops have sufficient rest and training and are provided well-maintained equipment. This is as it should be.

It allows for a redefined mission for American forces limited to antiterrorism operations, training Iraqi forces, and protecting American civilians and members of the Armed Forces. This is as it should be.

It begins the process of bringing our troops home. Into the fifth year of a war, this, too, is as it should be.

The American people spoke in a clear voice. Today, the United States Senate will as well.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and that the following Senators be recognized in the following order: Senator Shelby, 3 minutes; Senators Feinstein and Feingold, 10 minutes total; Senator Bunning, 15 minutes; and Senator Schumer, 15 minutes.

Madam President, on April 17, just over a week ago, I rose, along with the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and adopt S. 223, which was reported unanimously by the Rules Committee on March 28. Senator Alexander objected on behalf of a Republican Senator. As a result, the bill remains in limbo. To this date, that Republican Senator has declined to come forward to say why the bill should not become law.

This is such a simple, direct bill with respect to transparency. It is an idea whose time has long come. It is very hard for us to understand who could oppose this good government bill and what their reason for opposing it could be.

After last week's roadblock halted passage, the minority leader's spokesman told the Washington Post:

Senators are now reviewing the bill in anticipation of

legislative action.

We would hope that review is complete. We could now get down to business and today, by unanimous consent, just as we did in the Rules Committee, pass this bill, send it to the House, and have it become law. At our hearing on March 14 and our markup on March 28, it was clear there was no public opposition whatsoever to this bill. It is really time for the Senate to act.

The bill is titled the ``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.'' It is sponsored by Senators Feingold and Cochran and 33 additional Senators. It would simply require that the Senate campaign finance reports be filed electronically rather than in paper format, just as everyone else is doing now.

Currently, House candidates, Presidential candidates, political action committees, and party committees are all required to file electronically. And they do. But Senators, Senate candidates, authorized campaign committees, and the Democratic and Republican senatorial campaign committees are exempt. As a result, we have a cumbersome system in which paper copies of disclosure reports are filed with the Senate Office of Public Records, which scans them to make an electronic copy and sends the copy to the FEC on a dedicated communications line. The FEC then prints the report and sends it to the vendor in Fredericksburg, VA, where the information is keyed in by hand and then transferred back to the FEC database at a cost of approximately $250,000 to the taxpayers. This is $250,000 which is needlessly spent to continue an archaic system. It is long past time to bring the Senate into the modern era.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to let this bill go today.

I yield the floor to the author of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Madam President, I would like to thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership and for his continuing interests. Hopefully, this will pass today.

In that vein, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar item No. 96, S. 223, a bill to require Senate candidates to file designated statements and reports in electronic form, and that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action.

I thank the Chair. We will be back and back and back again.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the Channel Islands National Park Management Act of 2007.

This legislation seeks to clarify the future use and management of the park, and specifically protects Santa Rosa Island for the use of the public.

The taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to acquire Santa Rosa Island in 1986 to restore its native ecology and provide public access.

Unfortunately, late last year during conference negotiations a provision was slipped into the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization bill seeking to overturn a court-approved settlement agreement which requires the phasing out of private hunting on Santa Rosa Island.

Under a binding court settlement in the late 1990s, non-native deer and elk must be removed from Santa Rosa Island over a phased, 4-year period beginning in 2008.

Today, from mid-August through mid-November, a large portion of the island is closed to the public so that the island's prior owners can run a trophy hunting operation targeting the deer and elk on the island.

Under the settlement, this hunting operation was to end in 2011 allowing the island to be completely open to the public year round.

Now, under last year's provision, the prior owners will seek to continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting trips.

Even though the Government purchased the island from them for $30 million in taxpayer money, the prior owners would seek to keep essentially everything they had before--and that's simply not in the public interest.

Some may be interested in learning a little history and background on this gem of an island: Santa Rosa Island is approximately 53,000 acres and lies about 50 miles west of Ventura Harbor. It is the second largest of the five islands making up the Channel Islands National Park. It is extremely rugged and pristine, with terrain ranging from grassy hills to steep, wind-carved canyons to white sandy beaches. Craggy, steep cliffs overlook rocky tide pools along its coast. Wildflowers cover many parts of the island during the spring and summer. It is ecologically sensitive and includes several endemic plants and species. For example, it is the only place in the world to see the island fox and spotted skunk in their natural habitat. A variety of shore birds--like the snowy plover--and sea mammals--such as seals and sea lions--breed on its beaches. It is seen by many scientists as one of the nation's most unique places. In addition to being the home of rare flora and fauna, it is an archaeological and paleontological treasure, with some sites dating back 11,000 years or to the Pleistocene-era. In fact, in 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth was excavated on the island. It offers incredible recreational opportunities for the public, including hiking, camping, kayaking, fishing, sea sports, and wildlife watching.

The limitation of public access to the island to accommodate privately run hunting trips would be a tragedy. This is the public's land. It's a national park, and the public should be able to visit it and enjoy its breath-taking beauty and remoteness.

I also want to address one issue the provision in last year's Defense Authorization bill purportedly seeks to address: enhancing hunting opportunities for disabled veterans.

While no one opposes providing hunting opportunities for our veterans, it is clear that it is neither a practical nor viable option to use Santa Rosa Island as a hunting reserve for injured and disabled veterans.

This view is now supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA, an organization which previously expressed support for the provision overturning the settlement.

Notably, in July 2006, the PVA reached the conclusion following an investigative visit to Santa Rosa that the ``numerous obstacles inherent to the island, including ingress and egress, logistics, personal safety and cost, far outweigh the possible, limited benefit it could provide.''

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in California today, there are already 9 military installations that permit hunting--five that can accommodate disabled servicemembers.

Two of these military installations, Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg Air Force Base, are relatively close to the Channel Islands National Park, and allow disabled veterans to hunt a variety of animals, including deer, waterfowl, quail, feral pigs, small game, and coyote.

Altogether there are over 100 U.S. military installations where hunting is permitted, over 70 of which are currently accessible to disabled servicemembers and veterans.

Naturally, the Park Service is firmly opposed to the provision seeking to overturn the settlement. But it is also important to note that neither the Department of Defense nor the Veterans Administration asked for the language.

Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general public. To allow any less would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and wrongly limit the public's access to this national treasure.

I strongly believe that we must do everything to protect the island for the public and oppose any measures that could continue to restrict access to the island.

This legislation we are introducing today would safeguard the island in just this manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Grassley, as well as Senators Kohl, Feingold and Durbin as original co- sponsors, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007. This bill would take an important grant program for drug-endangered children that Congress authorized in the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act, and extend it for two additional years.

In particular, the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act authorized $20 million in Federal grants for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to States to assist in the treatment of children who have been endangered by living at a home where methamphetamine has been manufactured or distributed. But unless we pass new legislation, that authorization will not continue beyond the current fiscal year.

A companion bill was introduced earlier this year by California Congressman Dennis A. Cordoza, with bipartisan support in the House.

The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP, has documented that innocent children are sometimes found in homes and other environments, hotels, automobiles, apartments, etc., where methamphetamine and other illegal substances are produced.

According to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, there were 1,660 children affected by or injured or killed at methamphetamine labs during 2005.

These children who live at or visit drug-production sites or are present during drug production face a variety of health and safety risks, including: inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of toxic chemicals, drugs, or contaminated foods that may result in nausea, chest pain, eye and tissue irritation, chemical burns, and death; fires and explosions; abuse and neglect, and hazardous lifestyles, presence of booby traps, firearms, code violations, and poor ventilation.

Where children are involved, drug lab seizures must go beyond the normal response from law enforcement, fire and HAZMAT organizations. Additional agencies and officials often must be called in to assist, including emergency medical personnel, social services, and physicians.

Recognizing this need, the ONDCP several years ago announced a national Drug Endangered Children (DEC) initiative to assist with coordination between existing State programs and create a standardized training program to extend DEC to states where such a program does not yet exist.

As a result of this initiative, several states developed DEC programs, to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, medical services, and child welfare workers, to ensure that children found in these environments receive appropriate attention and care.

These DEC programs began to develop interagency protocols to support drug-endangered children, addressing issues such as: staff training, including safety and cross training; roles and responsibilities of agencies involved; appropriate reporting, cross-reporting, and information sharing; safety procedures for children, families, and responding personnel; interviewing procedures; evidence collection and preservation procedures, and medical care procedures.

Protocols were designed to identify and provide guidance on the variety of issues that responding agencies needed to address in these situations, such as taking children into protective custody and arranging for child protective services, immediately testing the children for methamphetamine exposure, conducting medical and mental health assessments, and ensuring short- and long-term care.

Unfortunately, the ONDCP's initiative, which had been funded in part through a DOJ award of $2.124 million under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine Initiative of 2003, was not continued thereafter.

The USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act that we passed in 2005, establishing a specific grant program for this purpose, recognized the need to continue this initiative. Unfortunately, this grant program that we authorized was never funded. In fiscal year 2006, the program that we authorized was appropriated no funds at all.

In fiscal year 2007, the House of Representatives voted to include $5 million for this important program as part of its CJS Appropriations bill. But unfortunately, the 109th Congress adjourned without passing most of its FY2007 appropriations bills, and the Continuing Resolution we passed to keep the government running did not fund this provision either.

So the bill that I introduce today would give the Congress another chance to revive this important initiative. And it can't come too soon for places like Merced, California, where three-quarters of all foster care cases are reported to be methamphetamine-related.

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

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Grassley in introducing the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2007. This bill would increase the criminal penalties that apply when criminals market their illegal drugs to our children, using appalling techniques like the recently reported sales on our streets of candy-flavored methamphetamine.

In particular, the bill would: double the maximum penalties applicable to drug crimes if a criminal defendant manufactures, offers, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance that is flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make it more appealing to a person under the age of 21; if the violation is a repeat offense, the maximum sentence would be tripled; and a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least a year would apply in every case involving illegal drugs that targets its marketing at minors.

The growing problem of marketing illegal drugs to minors was highlighted in a recent USA Today article, entitled ``Flavored Meth Use on the Rise,'' which stated, ``Reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.''

Normally, methamphetamine--a highly addictive stimulant--is a brownish, bitter-tasting crystalline powder. But drug dealers, recognizing that this may not be appealing to children or teenagers, have reacted by reaching a new low: they are using candy and soda flavors to market their meth.

Soda flavors. Strawberry methamphetamine that they market as ``Strawberry Quick.'' Reddish methamphetamine marketed as an energy drink like ``Red Bull.'' Even ``chocolate quick.''

Scott Burns, Deputy Drug Czar at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, warns that this development may negatively affect the gains we have recently made in getting the word out to our young people about how horrible this drug is.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of people 12 and older who used methamphetamine for the first time in the previous year decreased from 318,000 people in 2004 to 192,000 people in 2005. That's the good news.

But Deputy Drug Czar Burns warns that with drug dealers having a tougher time selling their product, especially to young people, ``they have to come up with some sort of gimmick.'' And that gimmick, he warns, is the use of flavored methamphetamine.

In my own State of California, San Francisco police since late January have arrested teens with quantities of meth designed to taste like chocolate. The Haight-Asbury clinic also confirms chocolate- flavored methamphetamine being used on the streets.

Dr. Alex Stalcup, a nationally renowned drug counselor, reports seeing teenage patients at the New Leaf Treatment Center suffering the ill effects of flavored methamphetamine since the first of this year.

One of Dr. Stalcup's patients was unaware that the substance was meth at all, and said he was told that it was a solidified form of the energy drink Red Bull. Dr. Stalcup warns that this new form of the drug also may be more likely to lead to an overdose, by users who may not be aware of, or who may underestimate, a candy-flavored drug's impact.

Perhaps the first report of this problem emerged in late January, when a Carson City, Nevada police informant purchased 2 grams of a strawberry-flavored methamphetamine from an alleged member of the Lima Street gang. Officers later served a search warrant on his home and found more. Police bulletins warned this ``new type of meth will be more attractive to a younger crowd and may surface in schools.''

Additional reports also came in. On February 13, a police officer in Greene County, MO, seized a bag of ``strawberry meth'' from a female passenger in a car stopped in a rural area of Greene County, MO. And in Idaho, the Administrator of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy warned of how drug dealers were producing ``strawberry quick'' and ``chocolate quick'' forms of meth, to attract young buyers and spawn a new generation of drug buyers.

The Idaho Press-Tribune even reported that at Valentine's Day, drug dealers compressed the flavored form of the drug into heart-shapes, colored it bright pink, and wrapped it in shiny paper.

Based on intelligence gathered by Drug Enforcement Administration agents from informants, users, police and drug counselors, flavored crystals are now available in California, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri and Minnesota.

The bill I offer today would address this problem, by enacting penalties to discourage colored and flavored drugs and the marketing of drugs to minors.

Under current law, there is already an enhanced penalty if someone distributes illegal drugs to a minor. The maximum sentence is doubled, and tripled for a repeat offense, and there is a minimum of at least a year in prison. But the enhancement applies only if there is an actual distribution to a minor. Even possession with intent to distribute doesn't qualify. And current law doesn't address flavored drugs or marketing illegal drugs in ways appealing to kids.

The bill I introduce would fix that. If someone manufactures, creates, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute an illegal drug that is flavored, colored, packaged or altered in a way designed to make it more appealing to someone under age 21, they would face this same enhanced penalty.

This bill will send a strong and clear message to the drug dealers-- if you flavor up your drugs or alter them in a way that makes it more appealing to our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay.

Flavored meth is designed to get people to try it a few times. It's all about hooking young people. And that is truly tragic. Listen to what one former addict wrote after hearing about this new development:

They do need to worry about our children because I happen

to know quite a few 10 and 12 year olds on up that are

already using it and selling it out there. So whoever thinks

it's not a threat to our children--WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's

more and more dangerous out there when people cannot handle

it and they develop a chemical imbalance and lose their mind

to where they don't even know who they are anymore. I happen

to know a very, very young pretty girl I've met, and she will

never come back to who she was. She's gone. She is crazy and

is gonna end up hurt then dead one of these days. I pray for

this girl all the time . . .

Estimates now place the number of habitual meth users worldwide at 26 million worldwide--more than the combined total for heroin and cocaine. It is extraordinarily addictive. We must act to preserve the gains we have made, and keep kids from getting cruelly tricked into an addiction they may never break.

These new penalties will make dealers think twice before flavoring up their drugs, and punish them appropriately if they don't. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the Channel Islands National Park Management Act of 2007.

This legislation seeks to clarify the future use and management of the park, and specifically protects Santa Rosa Island for the use of the public.

The taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to acquire Santa Rosa Island in 1986 to restore its native ecology and provide public access.

Unfortunately, late last year during conference negotiations a provision was slipped into the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization bill seeking to overturn a court-approved settlement agreement which requires the phasing out of private hunting on Santa Rosa Island.

Under a binding court settlement in the late 1990s, non-native deer and elk must be removed from Santa Rosa Island over a phased, 4-year period beginning in 2008.

Today, from mid-August through mid-November, a large portion of the island is closed to the public so that the island's prior owners can run a trophy hunting operation targeting the deer and elk on the island.

Under the settlement, this hunting operation was to end in 2011 allowing the island to be completely open to the public year round.

Now, under last year's provision, the prior owners will seek to continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting trips.

Even though the Government purchased the island from them for $30 million in taxpayer money, the prior owners would seek to keep essentially everything they had before--and that's simply not in the public interest.

Some may be interested in learning a little history and background on this gem of an island: Santa Rosa Island is approximately 53,000 acres and lies about 50 miles west of Ventura Harbor. It is the second largest of the five islands making up the Channel Islands National Park. It is extremely rugged and pristine, with terrain ranging from grassy hills to steep, wind-carved canyons to white sandy beaches. Craggy, steep cliffs overlook rocky tide pools along its coast. Wildflowers cover many parts of the island during the spring and summer. It is ecologically sensitive and includes several endemic plants and species. For example, it is the only place in the world to see the island fox and spotted skunk in their natural habitat. A variety of shore birds--like the snowy plover--and sea mammals--such as seals and sea lions--breed on its beaches. It is seen by many scientists as one of the nation's most unique places. In addition to being the home of rare flora and fauna, it is an archaeological and paleontological treasure, with some sites dating back 11,000 years or to the Pleistocene-era. In fact, in 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth was excavated on the island. It offers incredible recreational opportunities for the public, including hiking, camping, kayaking, fishing, sea sports, and wildlife watching.

The limitation of public access to the island to accommodate privately run hunting trips would be a tragedy. This is the public's land. It's a national park, and the public should be able to visit it and enjoy its breath-taking beauty and remoteness.

I also want to address one issue the provision in last year's Defense Authorization bill purportedly seeks to address: enhancing hunting opportunities for disabled veterans.

While no one opposes providing hunting opportunities for our veterans, it is clear that it is neither a practical nor viable option to use Santa Rosa Island as a hunting reserve for injured and disabled veterans.

This view is now supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA, an organization which previously expressed support for the provision overturning the settlement.

Notably, in July 2006, the PVA reached the conclusion following an investigative visit to Santa Rosa that the ``numerous obstacles inherent to the island, including ingress and egress, logistics, personal safety and cost, far outweigh the possible, limited benefit it could provide.''

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in California today, there are already 9 military installations that permit hunting--five that can accommodate disabled servicemembers.

Two of these military installations, Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg Air Force Base, are relatively close to the Channel Islands National Park, and allow disabled veterans to hunt a variety of animals, including deer, waterfowl, quail, feral pigs, small game, and coyote.

Altogether there are over 100 U.S. military installations where hunting is permitted, over 70 of which are currently accessible to disabled servicemembers and veterans.

Naturally, the Park Service is firmly opposed to the provision seeking to overturn the settlement. But it is also important to note that neither the Department of Defense nor the Veterans Administration asked for the language.

Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general public. To allow any less would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and wrongly limit the public's access to this national treasure.

I strongly believe that we must do everything to protect the island for the public and oppose any measures that could continue to restrict access to the island.

This legislation we are introducing today would safeguard the island in just this manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Grassley, as well as Senators Kohl, Feingold and Durbin as original co- sponsors, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007. This bill would take an important grant program for drug-endangered children that Congress authorized in the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act, and extend it for two additional years.

In particular, the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act authorized $20 million in Federal grants for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to States to assist in the treatment of children who have been endangered by living at a home where methamphetamine has been manufactured or distributed. But unless we pass new legislation, that authorization will not continue beyond the current fiscal year.

A companion bill was introduced earlier this year by California Congressman Dennis A. Cordoza, with bipartisan support in the House.

The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP, has documented that innocent children are sometimes found in homes and other environments, hotels, automobiles, apartments, etc., where methamphetamine and other illegal substances are produced.

According to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, there were 1,660 children affected by or injured or killed at methamphetamine labs during 2005.

These children who live at or visit drug-production sites or are present during drug production face a variety of health and safety risks, including: inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of toxic chemicals, drugs, or contaminated foods that may result in nausea, chest pain, eye and tissue irritation, chemical burns, and death; fires and explosions; abuse and neglect, and hazardous lifestyles, presence of booby traps, firearms, code violations, and poor ventilation.

Where children are involved, drug lab seizures must go beyond the normal response from law enforcement, fire and HAZMAT organizations. Additional agencies and officials often must be called in to assist, including emergency medical personnel, social services, and physicians.

Recognizing this need, the ONDCP several years ago announced a national Drug Endangered Children (DEC) initiative to assist with coordination between existing State programs and create a standardized training program to extend DEC to states where such a program does not yet exist.

As a result of this initiative, several states developed DEC programs, to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, medical services, and child welfare workers, to ensure that children found in these environments receive appropriate attention and care.

These DEC programs began to develop interagency protocols to support drug-endangered children, addressing issues such as: staff training, including safety and cross training; roles and responsibilities of agencies involved; appropriate reporting, cross-reporting, and information sharing; safety procedures for children, families, and responding personnel; interviewing procedures; evidence collection and preservation procedures, and medical care procedures.

Protocols were designed to identify and provide guidance on the variety of issues that responding agencies needed to address in these situations, such as taking children into protective custody and arranging for child protective services, immediately testing the children for methamphetamine exposure, conducting medical and mental health assessments, and ensuring short- and long-term care.

Unfortunately, the ONDCP's initiative, which had been funded in part through a DOJ award of $2.124 million under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine Initiative of 2003, was not continued thereafter.

The USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act that we passed in 2005, establishing a specific grant program for this purpose, recognized the need to continue this initiative. Unfortunately, this grant program that we authorized was never funded. In fiscal year 2006, the program that we authorized was appropriated no funds at all.

In fiscal year 2007, the House of Representatives voted to include $5 million for this important program as part of its CJS Appropriations bill. But unfortunately, the 109th Congress adjourned without passing most of its FY2007 appropriations bills, and the Continuing Resolution we passed to keep the government running did not fund this provision either.

So the bill that I introduce today would give the Congress another chance to revive this important initiative. And it can't come too soon for places like Merced, California, where three-quarters of all foster care cases are reported to be methamphetamine-related.

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

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Grassley in introducing the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2007. This bill would increase the criminal penalties that apply when criminals market their illegal drugs to our children, using appalling techniques like the recently reported sales on our streets of candy-flavored methamphetamine.

In particular, the bill would: double the maximum penalties applicable to drug crimes if a criminal defendant manufactures, offers, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance that is flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make it more appealing to a person under the age of 21; if the violation is a repeat offense, the maximum sentence would be tripled; and a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least a year would apply in every case involving illegal drugs that targets its marketing at minors.

The growing problem of marketing illegal drugs to minors was highlighted in a recent USA Today article, entitled ``Flavored Meth Use on the Rise,'' which stated, ``Reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.''

Normally, methamphetamine--a highly addictive stimulant--is a brownish, bitter-tasting crystalline powder. But drug dealers, recognizing that this may not be appealing to children or teenagers, have reacted by reaching a new low: they are using candy and soda flavors to market their meth.

Soda flavors. Strawberry methamphetamine that they market as ``Strawberry Quick.'' Reddish methamphetamine marketed as an energy drink like ``Red Bull.'' Even ``chocolate quick.''

Scott Burns, Deputy Drug Czar at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, warns that this development may negatively affect the gains we have recently made in getting the word out to our young people about how horrible this drug is.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of people 12 and older who used methamphetamine for the first time in the previous year decreased from 318,000 people in 2004 to 192,000 people in 2005. That's the good news.

But Deputy Drug Czar Burns warns that with drug dealers having a tougher time selling their product, especially to young people, ``they have to come up with some sort of gimmick.'' And that gimmick, he warns, is the use of flavored methamphetamine.

In my own State of California, San Francisco police since late January have arrested teens with quantities of meth designed to taste like chocolate. The Haight-Asbury clinic also confirms chocolate- flavored methamphetamine being used on the streets.

Dr. Alex Stalcup, a nationally renowned drug counselor, reports seeing teenage patients at the New Leaf Treatment Center suffering the ill effects of flavored methamphetamine since the first of this year.

One of Dr. Stalcup's patients was unaware that the substance was meth at all, and said he was told that it was a solidified form of the energy drink Red Bull. Dr. Stalcup warns that this new form of the drug also may be more likely to lead to an overdose, by users who may not be aware of, or who may underestimate, a candy-flavored drug's impact.

Perhaps the first report of this problem emerged in late January, when a Carson City, Nevada police informant purchased 2 grams of a strawberry-flavored methamphetamine from an alleged member of the Lima Street gang. Officers later served a search warrant on his home and found more. Police bulletins warned this ``new type of meth will be more attractive to a younger crowd and may surface in schools.''

Additional reports also came in. On February 13, a police officer in Greene County, MO, seized a bag of ``strawberry meth'' from a female passenger in a car stopped in a rural area of Greene County, MO. And in Idaho, the Administrator of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy warned of how drug dealers were producing ``strawberry quick'' and ``chocolate quick'' forms of meth, to attract young buyers and spawn a new generation of drug buyers.

The Idaho Press-Tribune even reported that at Valentine's Day, drug dealers compressed the flavored form of the drug into heart-shapes, colored it bright pink, and wrapped it in shiny paper.

Based on intelligence gathered by Drug Enforcement Administration agents from informants, users, police and drug counselors, flavored crystals are now available in California, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri and Minnesota.

The bill I offer today would address this problem, by enacting penalties to discourage colored and flavored drugs and the marketing of drugs to minors.

Under current law, there is already an enhanced penalty if someone distributes illegal drugs to a minor. The maximum sentence is doubled, and tripled for a repeat offense, and there is a minimum of at least a year in prison. But the enhancement applies only if there is an actual distribution to a minor. Even possession with intent to distribute doesn't qualify. And current law doesn't address flavored drugs or marketing illegal drugs in ways appealing to kids.

The bill I introduce would fix that. If someone manufactures, creates, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute an illegal drug that is flavored, colored, packaged or altered in a way designed to make it more appealing to someone under age 21, they would face this same enhanced penalty.

This bill will send a strong and clear message to the drug dealers-- if you flavor up your drugs or alter them in a way that makes it more appealing to our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay.

Flavored meth is designed to get people to try it a few times. It's all about hooking young people. And that is truly tragic. Listen to what one former addict wrote after hearing about this new development:

They do need to worry about our children because I happen

to know quite a few 10 and 12 year olds on up that are

already using it and selling it out there. So whoever thinks

it's not a threat to our children--WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's

more and more dangerous out there when people cannot handle

it and they develop a chemical imbalance and lose their mind

to where they don't even know who they are anymore. I happen

to know a very, very young pretty girl I've met, and she will

never come back to who she was. She's gone. She is crazy and

is gonna end up hurt then dead one of these days. I pray for

this girl all the time . . .

Estimates now place the number of habitual meth users worldwide at 26 million worldwide--more than the combined total for heroin and cocaine. It is extraordinarily addictive. We must act to preserve the gains we have made, and keep kids from getting cruelly tricked into an addiction they may never break.

These new penalties will make dealers think twice before flavoring up their drugs, and punish them appropriately if they don't. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Majority Leader Reid's legislation S. 761, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science-- COMPETES--Act of 2007 to help maintain our Nation's competitive edge in the critical areas of math, science, engineering and technology.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important bill with 57 of my colleagues.

This bill will strengthen educational opportunities in math, science, engineering, and technology from elementary through graduate school, increase the Federal investment in basic research, and develop an innovation infrastructure--all which is greatly needed in an increasingly competitive global economy.

This bipartisan bill reflects recommendations by the National Academies' report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and the Council on Competitiveness' ``Innovate America'' report.

Both of these reports conclude that action is needed now in order to secure our country's economic and technological leadership in the future.

For example, indicators of the need for action are the following: More than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China in 2004. In India, the figure was 350,000. In the U.S., it was only about 70,000. Science and engineering jobs are expected to grow by 21 percent from 2004 to 2014, compared to a growth of 13 percent in all other fields, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.

Nationwide, about 68 percent of middle school math students were taught by teachers who did not have a major or certification in the subject. For science middle school students, 57 percent were taught by teachers who did not have a major or certification in the subject-- based on the 2004 report by the National Center for Education Statistics.

In California, the State also faces a critical shortage of math and science teachers. The State will need to produce more than 16,000 new math and science teachers within 5 years and more than 33,000 over the next decade due to attrition and retirement. This is from the March 2007 report by the California Council on Science and Technology.

This report also concludes that strengthening the teaching of math and science is crucial if California is to maintain its competitive edge and economic growth.

That is why it is imperative that we take steps to ensure that our children, as our future leaders, are fully prepared with the skills to take on the demands of the country's changing economy and workplace.

Specifically, this bill would increase authorized funding for the National Science Foundation from $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. California receives about 20 percent of total funding from NSF grants; increase authorized funding for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science from $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2008 to over $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. California receives over 20 percent of total Federal funding; direct NASA to transfer $160 million from its accounts for the funding of basic science and research for fiscal year 2008 and fully participate in interagency activities to foster innovation; authorize $290 million over 4 years to establish a Distinguished Scientists Program under the U.S. Department of Energy which would be a joint program between universities and National Laboratories to support up to 100 distinguished scientist positions; authorize $210 million for fiscal year 2008, and such sums as necessary for each of the following three years, for new grants under the U.S. Department of Education to develop university degree programs for students to pursue bachelor's degrees in math, science, engineering, and critical foreign languages with concurrent teaching credentials.

Also, grants would be used for master's degree programs in these fields for current teachers to improve their skills.

This model is similar to the University of California's California Teach Program which aims to put a thousand new math and science teachers annually into the State's classrooms.

It will authorize $190 million over 4 years to create a new grant program to improve the skills of K-12 math and science teachers, under the U.S. Department of Energy, for summer institutes at each of the National Laboratories; authorizes $146.7 million for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as necessary for the following 3 years to provide ``Math Now'' grants, under the

U.S. Department of Education, to improve math instruction for struggling elementary and middle school students; authorize $140 million over 4 years for a new competitive grant program under the U.S. Department of Energy to assist States in establishing or expanding statewide math and science specialty schools and provide expert assistance in teaching from the National Laboratories' at these schools; establishes a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness and requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to identify barriers to innovation 1 year after enactment.

America's economy is fueled by innovation, and innovation is enabled by a strong foundation in math and science. Our country's math and science foundation is eroding, and our innovative strength is similarly weakening.

The U.S. trade balance in high-technology products has shifted from a $54 billion surplus in 1990 to a $50 billion deficit in 2001.

This legislation can help reverse this trend. It will help maintain our Nation's global competitiveness and continue to attract the best and brightest minds across the country to pursue careers as engineers, scientists, technicians, and very importantly, as math and science teachers.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Ninety-two years ago today, on the night of April 24, 1915, the Ottoman government launched a series of raids in which hundreds of Armenian leaders and intellectuals were arrested and subsequently deported or killed. This event marked the beginning of a systematic campaign of murder, deportation, and forced starvation, during which as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished and 500,000 were exiled by the Ottoman government.

We are obliged to remember and speak about their suffering because silence about such atrocities plants the seed for another tragedy.

On the eve of the 1939 Nazi invasion of Poland, seeking to allay the fears of his aides, Adolf Hitler said: ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?''

And today, the world is again witnessing genocide, one waged by a government against its own people, one involving mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and forced starvation. I am speaking, of course, about the genocide in Darfur.

Let there be no mistake. The ongoing genocide in Darfur, carried out by the Government of Sudan and its janjaweed militias, traces its roots to the silence and quiescence of the international community during previous episodes of genocide and ethnic cleansing, including the Armenian genocide.

By acknowledging and learning from the Armenian genocide, then, we become better positioned to prevent present and future atrocities.

Open discussion of the Armenian genocide serves another important purpose. It enables the descendants of those involved in the Armenian genocide--both perpetrators and victims--to mend the wounds that have not yet healed.

As recently as January of this year, a Turkish-Armenian journalist, Hrant Dink, was murdered because of his outspoken advocacy for Turkish recognition of the Armenian genocide. This incident serves as an important reminder that an open, informed, and tolerant discussion of the genocide is critical.

California is home to many of the descendants of the genocide's survivors, who immigrated to the United States and, over the course of a few decades, built strong and vibrant communities. Working closely with the Armenian-American community over my many years in public service, I know how alive and painful this issue continues to be for many Armenian Americans.

So I rise before you today and ask that you join me in acknowledging and commemorating the Armenian genocide. Together, let us send a strong message that such atrocities will never be accepted, regardless of when and where they take place.

And let us ensure that the legacy of the Armenian genocide is one of reconciliation and hope.