Floor Statements

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

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

The couple fled Egypt because they had been targeted for their active involvement in the Coptic Christian Church in Egypt. Mr. Gabra was repeatedly jailed by Egyptian authorities because of his work for the church. In addition, Ms. Kamel's cousin was murdered and her brother's business was fire-bombed.

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

Frightened by these threats, the young family sought refuge in the United States. Unfortunately, when they sought asylum here, Mr. Gabra, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating his fear of persecution to the immigration judge.

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

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

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

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

Jessica, 8, is the Gabra's oldest child, and in the Gifted and Talented Education program in Ventura County. Rebecca, age 7, and Rafael, age 6, are old enough to understand that they would be leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. Veronica, the Gabra's youngest child, is just 18 months old.

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

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

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

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

In addition, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the Camarillo community be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 214, the bill the leader just referred to. This is a bill that simply reinstates the Senate's role in the confirmation process of U.S. attorneys. It is a bill I introduced with Senator Leahy on January 9, 2007, days after I first learned in early December that officials from main Justice called a handful of U.S. attorneys from around the country and forced them to resign their positions without cause.

At that time, I had very little information and was unaware of exactly what had occurred and why. As I looked into it, I learned that in March of 2006, the PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and a change was made in the law. It was made in conference without Democratic Senators present. To the best of my knowledge, it was made without the knowledge of any Senator, Republican or Democrat. It is my understanding this was a request from the Justice Department that was presented by Will Moschella to the staff of the Judiciary Committee and, without the knowledge of Senators, was put into the bill. It then gave the President the authority essentially to appoint a U.S. attorney without confirmation for the remainder of his term.

The bill, S. 214, that is before the Senate today simply returns the law the way it was before this action took place in March of 2006.

Today, just a little more than 2 months after I first learned about this situation, additional information has come to light. But rather than alleviating the concerns and answering questions, we are now faced with new and more serious allegations. In fact, the big question looming over this debate is whether the Attorney General and others in the Bush administration have misled the Congress and the public. If true, this is very serious.

There are also allegations that the firings were done because the Department of Justice and the White House were both unhappy with some of the U.S. attorneys' handling of public corruption cases. If true this, too, is very serious.

We now know that at least eight U.S. attorneys were forced from office, and that despite shifting rationales for why, it has become clear that politics has, in fact, played some role.

Last week, we learned that the White House was involved in this process and that discussions took place with such prominent figures as Presidential adviser Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. We also learned last week that these discussions began well over 2 years ago, almost immediately following the 2004 election, and it appears from recently released e-mails that Attorney General Gonzales was personally consulted, even while he was still serving as White House Counsel.

This information also shed new light on who was being targeted for firing and why. It is this last point--why some were targeted--that has served to raise more questions and more significant concerns. We have learned that as many as six of the eight U.S. attorneys who were involved with public corruption cases. While we don't know what role this played in their selection, it is an unavoidable fact that raises serious questions.

Today, as the Senate begins the debate on the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act, I would like to discuss some of what we have learned in greater detail and some of the reasons this bill is so necessary.

I believe it is important to look at how interim U.S. attorneys have been appointed over the years. There appears to be an assumption by the Bush administration that the Attorney General should have an exclusive authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys. But, in fact, history paints a much different picture.

When first looking into this issue, I found that the statutes had given the courts the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney and that this dated back as far as the Civil War. Specifically, the authority was first vested with the circuit courts in March of 1863. Then, in 1898, a House of Representatives report explained that while Congress believed it was important to have the courts appoint an interim U.S. attorney, there was a problem relying on circuit courts ``since the circuit justice is not always to be found in the circuit and time is wasted in ascertaining his whereabouts.'' Therefore, at that time, the interim appointment authority was switched to the district courts; that is, in 1898 it was switched to the district courts. Thus, for almost 100 years, the district courts were in charge of appointing interim U.S. attorneys, and they did so with virtually no problems.

This structure was left undisturbed until 1986 when the statute was changed during the Reagan administration. In a bill that was introduced by Senator Strom Thurmond, the statute was changed to give the appointment authority to the Attorney General, but even then it was restricted and the Attorney General had a 120-day time limit. After that time, if a nominee was not confirmed, the district courts would appoint an interim U.S. attorney. The adoption of this language was part of a larger package that was billed as technical amendments to criminal law, and thus there was no recorded debate in either the House or the Senate and both Chambers passed the bill by voice vote.

Then, 20 years later, in March 2006--again without much debate and again as a part of a larger package--a statutory change was inserted into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. This time, the Executive's power was expanded even further, giving the Attorney General the authority to appoint an interim replacement indefinitely and without Senate confirmation.

Unfortunately, not 1 year after securing this new authority, abuses have come to light. Almost immediately after I first spoke about what I had learned in January, the Attorney General called me to tell me that I had my facts wrong. However, he also sent up his staff to confirm that ``less than 10'' U.S. attorneys had been asked to resign on December 7, 2006.

Despite this, the Attorney General adamantly denied politics had any role in the process. In fact, in an interview with an Associated Press reporter on January 16, 2007, the Attorney General was asked about the charges of political motivation, and he responded:

Nothing could be further from the truth.

He further stated in response to your comment, Mr. President, that the Department tried to avoid Senate confirmation to reward political allies:

We in no way politicized these decisions.

Two days later, the Attorney General reiterated this position when he came before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18 of this year and said:

I would never, ever make a change in the United States

attorney position for political reasons.

That is a categorical and definitive monosyllabic statement. However, the Department had to backtrack when it became evident that the former U.S. attorney from your State, Mr. President, Arkansas, Bud Cummins, was simply replaced in order to make room for Tim Griffin, who had served as Karl Rove's special assistant and had been in charge of opposition research against Democratic candidates for the Republican National Committee.

Less than a month later, the Deputy Attorney General confirmed this fact when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 7, 2007. At that time, he said:

The fact is there was a change made [in Arkansas] that was

not connected, as we said, to the performance of the

incumbent, but more related to the opportunity to provide a

fresh start with a new person in that position.

Deputy Attorney General McNulty, however, went on to say that all the others who were fired were fired for ``performance-related reasons.'' But this, too, was not the final explanation. The Department next tried to justify the firings by arguing that the U.S. attorneys were let go because there were ``policy disagreements.'' Then the Attorney General said that these U.S. attorneys had ``lost [his] confidence.'' So there are three different reasons so far. Now, most recently, the explanation has been that the Department thought it ``could do better''--the fourth explanation.

These explanations are as slippery as they are misleading. Rather, what documents and e-mails demonstrate is that none of these reasons was the deciding factor that led some U.S. attorneys to be targeted for firing. Instead, it appears these individuals lost their jobs because a number of Department of Justice officials and possibly--we don't know but possibly--White House officials did not judge them to be sufficiently loyal or did not like the cases they were prosecuting or simply wanted to put in new, politically connected, young lawyers. It appears this way because contained in the documents that were released last week is an outline of the Department of Justice's plan for how to determine who should be let go and who should stay.

The first step of that plan was to create a new rating system to evaluate all

93 U.S. attorneys. This was to be separate from the independent performance reports, called EARS reports. Those reports routinely occurred and objectively examined each U.S. Attorney's Office by evaluating their prosecution caseloads, their management, their willingness to follow Department priorities, and their ability to work cooperatively with the FBI, with the DEA, and with other client agencies.

This rating system was developed back in February of 2005, and one of the primary factors to be considered was loyalty to the administration.

One e-mail describing the ratings stated:

Recommended retaining strong U.S. attorneys who have

produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the

President and Attorney General. Recommended removing weak

U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and

prosecutors, chafe against administration initiatives.

Under this system, two of the eight fired U.S. attorneys received strong evaluations and recommended retaining while three received recommended removing.

One of the U.S. attorneys who received a recommended removing rating was Carol Lam from the Southern District of California. She received this low rating despite her many accomplishments and despite her positive performance evaluations. I am familiar with Carol Lam's career because she served in San Diego. In that position, she has taken on some of the biggest cases and really made a positive impact on the community she has served. But that is not just my opinion. Leaders throughout San Diego have sung her praises. Let me give a few examples.

Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI office in San Diego:

Carol has an excellent reputation and has done an excellent

job given her limited resources.

Then, when asked whether she had given proper attention to gun cases, he said:

What do you expect her to do? Let corruption exist?

Adele Fasano, the San Diego Director of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said:

[We have] enjoyed a strong, collaborative relationship with

the U.S. Attorney's Office to combat smuggling activity

through the ports of entry.

City attorney for San Diego, Michael Aguirre, said:

[Carol Lam] has been by far the most outstanding U.S.

Attorney we've ever had . . . she's won a national reputation

as one of the top prosecutors in the country.

This is the city attorney.

Michael Unzueta, Special Agent in Charge, Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

Carol Lam is truly an example of a dedicated public servant

and a law enforcement professional. We will miss her

leadership.

John Cooper, Special Agent in Charge, Naval Criminal Investigative Service:

The departure of Ms. Lam will be a great loss . . . Ms. Lam

is the consummate law enforcement executive who leads by

example.

And Alan Poleszak, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement Agency:

The on-going prosecution of [the] Javier Arellano Felix

drug trafficking organization is both historic and noteworthy

. . . [Ms. Lam's] commitment to Federal law enforcement in

this judicial district, county, and city, will be missed.

We should take note of the fact that the Arellano Felix organization is one of the largest and most dangerous Mexican drug cartels known. They operate out of Tijuana. They have killed hundreds of people. They have murdered Mexican DAs, they have murdered Mexican judges, and they are a blight. This U.S. attorney took them on. I will tell my colleagues more about that in a moment. The reason Carol Lam was well respected is because she worked hard and she took on the tough fights. She has had success after success. Let me give some examples.

In September of 2005, the president of the San Diego chapter of Hell's Angels pled guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering. Guy Russell Castiglione admitted he conspired to kill members of a rival motorcycle gang, the Mongols, to sell methamphetamine. In December 2005, Daymond Buchanan, member of Hell's Angels, was sentenced to 92 months in Federal prison for participating in a pattern of racketeering as well as inflicting serious bodily injury upon one victim. At that time, Ms. Lam announced:

With the president, sergeant at arms, secretary, treasurer,

and six other members of the Hell's Angels convicted of

racketeering charges and facing long prison sentences, the

San Diego chapter of the Hell's Angels has been effectively

shut down for the foreseeable future.

If that isn't enough, in September of 2006, Jose Ernesto Beltran- Quinonez, a Mexican national, pled guilty to making false statements about weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Quinonez was sentenced to 3 years in Federal prison for making up a story about Chinese terrorists sneaking into the United States with a nuclear warhead. The hoax prompted a massive investigation, Federal warnings, discussions at one of President Bush's security briefings, and a nationwide hunt for the group of Chinese supposedly plotting the attack.

In December 2006 Mel Kay, of Golden State Fence Company, and Michael McLaughlin pled guilty to felony charges of hiring illegal immigrants and agreed to pay fines of $200,000 and $100,000 respectively. The company, which built much of the fence near Otay Mesa, agreed separately to pay $5 million on a misdemeanor count, one of the largest fines ever imposed on a company for an immigration violation.

Was Carol Lam praised for this work? No, she was sent packing without an explanation. Those were not her only cases.

She gained a national reputation for her work on public corruption cases. I think it is important to note that public corruption is the FBI's second highest priority after terrorism-related investigations. Now, I didn't know this, but the Judiciary Committee had an oversight hearing of the FBI on December 6, 2006, where the Director, Bob Mueller, came before us and he mentioned what their priorities were, and he said: Terrorism first, and then public corruption second, and crime was way down on the list.

As a matter of fact, I found it rather startling, and I questioned him about that. He said, with some emphasis, those are our priorities, and we believe if we don't do public corruption, nobody else will. So the FBI has as its second highest priority public corruption. The FBI is going to be out there putting together cases. Who prosecutes these cases? U.S. attorneys. The FBI's second highest priority, and Carol Lam rose to this challenge.

In March of 2004, her office convicted Steven Mark Lash, the former chief financial officer of FPA Medical Management, for his role in defrauding shareholders and lenders of FPA. The collapse of the company left more than 1,600 doctors being owed more than $60 million and patients reporting they were unable to obtain medical care because this company had ceased paying providers.

In January of 2005, Mark Anthony Kolowich, owner of World Express Rx, pled guilty to conspiracy to sell counterfeit pharmaceuticals, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and smuggle pharmaceuticals, and conspiracy to launder money. Mr. Kolowich had run an Internet pharmacy Web site where customers could order prescription drugs without a valid prescription. The judge called him the kingpin and architect of an illicit pharmaceutical ring that recruited many others to smuggle drugs across the United States-Mexico border at San Ysidro.

Another case. In July 2005, Mrs. Lam brought a case against San Diego councilman Ralph Inzunza and Las Vegas lobbyist Lance Malone. They were convicted on multiple counts of extortion, wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud and were accused of trading money for efforts to repeal a law.

Then, in her most well-known case, in November of 2005, Ms. Lam secured a guilty plea from former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham for taking more than $2 million in bribes in a criminal conspiracy case involving at least three defense contractors after he accepted cash and gifts and then tried to influence the Defense Department on behalf of donors. He also pled guilty to a separate tax evasion violation for failing to disclose income in 2004.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. Finally, 2 days before she left office, that would be around February 13, Carol Lam announced indictments of Kyle ``Dusty'' Foggo, a former top officer of the Central Intelligence

Agency, and Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor accused of bribing Duke Cunningham and the prime benefactor of secret CIA contracts. It is this latest incident, involving the ongoing investigations stemming from the Cunningham case, that has raised the most significant concerns about Carol Lam's removal.

When I first came to the floor in January, I mentioned rumors were circulating around California that Carol Lam was pushed out because of her efforts in the Duke Cunningham case and subsequent investigations. I have tried to be very careful about talking about these allegations because they are so serious and because, at the time, they were based on mere speculation.

Despite recent materials coming to light, I want to continue to be very careful in talking about these allegations. At the same time, I must say that today there are even more questions to be answered regarding what role public corruption cases played in the administration's decisions about which U.S. attorneys to fire. We have now learned that six of the eight fired U.S. attorneys were involved in public corruption cases.

The Washington Post noted this, I think, very well, as I will point out here on this chart.

David Iglesias, New Mexico--oversaw probes of State Democrats and alleges two Republican lawmakers pressured him about the case. He was respected by the Judiciary agencies and staff, complied with Department priorities.

Daniel Bogden, Nevada--overall evaluation was very positive. Notable cases, opened a probe related to Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, former Member of Congress.

Paul Charlton, Arizona--opened preliminary probes of Representatives Jim Kolbe and Rick Renzi before November election. Well respected, established goals that were appropriate to meet the priorities of the Department.

These are quotes from the official performance reports. I am not making them up, and I am not taking them from any individual. These are 27 people who go into an office and evaluate the performance of a U.S. attorney. What did they say about notable cases?

Bud Cummins, Eastern Arkansas--Cummins was very competent, highly regarded.

That was his performance review. He conducted a probe related to Missouri Governor Roy Blunt, which he later closed without charges.

There is Carol Lam, Southern California, whom I have already mentioned.

John McKay, Western Washington--here is the job performance: effective, well regarded, capable leader, established strategic goals that were appropriate. Here is the case: Declined to intervene in disputed gubernatorial election, angry GOP.

Those are the six. In Carol Lam's case, these allegations have become even more troubling.

Following the conviction of Duke Cunningham, in April 2006, Federal prosecutors in Carol Lam's office began investigating whether Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor, and Kyle ``Dusty'' Foggo, the third highest ranking official at the CIA, and others were involved in bribery and corruption. Throughout the first week of May 2006, information began to surface in the press regarding this ongoing investigation. Then, on May 10, 2006, Carol Lam quietly sent an urgent notice to officials at Main Justice to inform the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General she was about to execute search warrants on May 12--that is 2 days later--to search the home and CIA office of Dusty Foggo. The very next day, after she sent this internal notice, Department of Justice staff sent an e-mail to the White House that said this:

Please call me to discuss the following: . . . The real

problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to

conclude that we should have somebody ready to be nominated

on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.

The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam. And that is the day after she notified Main Justice that she was executing two search warrants.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete e-mail be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there could be a straightforward explanation for this e-mail that has nothing to do with public corruption cases Carol Lam was pursuing. However, the timing looks really suspicious and it raises serious questions, questions that need to be answered. Because if any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could very well comprise obstruction of justice.

I believe that irrespective of the intent behind the decision to fire Carol Lam and the other U.S. attorneys working on public corruption cases, such a removal sends a message to all other Federal prosecutors, whether intended or not, that creates a chilling effect. Because of this, there should have been very careful consideration given to what steps should have been taken to ensure it was clear there was good reason to remove the prosecutor, that the office itself had a comprehensive plan in place to ensure no cases or investigations would be harmed or slowed in any way and that ongoing public corruption cases had absolutely nothing to do with the removal of the U.S. attorney.

However, in the case of Carol Lam and in the case of five other U.S. attorneys, the administration failed to meet even these bare minimum standards. I strongly believe that removal of a United States attorney who is involved in an ongoing public corruption case should occur only--only if there is a very good reason, and not simply ``we could do better.''

Because of the public corruption cases and allegations that individuals were removed to put in politically connected young lawyers, another issue that must be examined is the appearance of politics impacting how U.S. attorneys are treated and what that means for the prosecution of justice.

As was reported in the McClatchy newspapers, former Federal prosecutors and defense lawyers have said:

Allegations of political interference could undermine the

reputation of U.S. attorneys as impartial enforcers of the

law.

And, yes, I really agree with that.

One former Federal prosecutor said:

One of the things the Department has stood for was being

apolitical. Sure, politics does get involved in the

appointment process, but this is just nuts.

He is right. Yes, appointees are selected and nominated by the party in power. But once an individual U.S. attorney takes that oath of office, he or she must be independent, objective, and must be free to pursue justice wherever the facts lead.

Bruce Fein, the former Associate Deputy Attorney General for the

Reagan administration, said in an interview last week:

[W]e expect the rule of law to be administered

evenhandedly. That's what ties our country together and gives

legitimacy to decisions by the court and to the government

itself. When it's obvious that the prosecution function is

being manipulated for political purposes, that undermines the

entire rule of law.

In defending its actions, administration officials and others have tried to argue that both Presidents Reagan and Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when they came into office, and that is no different than what occurred in December. Right?

Wrong. The implication of this argument has been that it is not unheard of to fire U.S. attorneys in this manner, and that, at some level, it is commonplace. Right?

Wrong, it is not commonplace. In fact, the Department of Justice and the White House knew that this was not commonplace and that comparing its actions to Reagan and Clinton was an inaccurate analogy. A memo, written by Kyl Sampson on January 1, 2006, to the Counsel to the President, clearly stated:

During the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, President

Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S.

Attorneys they had appointed, whose four-year terms had

expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve

indefinitely under the holdover provision.

That is a memo from the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, again, on January 1, 2006.

So they knew. They knew that just to say President Reagan and President Clinton each formed a new team when they became President couldn't be used as precedent because it was not an accurate precedent.

Despite this, the administration and its defenders have continued to argue that firing U.S. attorneys was ``entirely appropriate'' and that it was justified because executive branch appointees ``serve at the pleasure of the President.'' In fact, this had never been done before. In fact, as far as we have been able to find out so far, and they are still researching it--but the Congressional Research Service has told us that in the past 25 years, only two U.S. attorneys who served less than a full term have been fired.

Interestingly, this talking point about ``serving at the pleasure of the President'' is repeated throughout the documents that have been released as to what the administration should say when asked about the firing of U.S. attorneys. Specifically, it was listed in several versions of a memo that outlined the steps to be taken to execute the plan. This, again, is a memo from the Chief of Staff to the Attorney General:

``Step 3: Prepare to withstand political upheaval.'' We

should expect that there will be ``direct and indirect

appeals of the Administration's determination to seek these

resignations. . . . Recipients of such `appeals' must respond

identically . . . U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the

President.''

So those to whom somebody appeals must reinforce this argument: U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. That little statement is meant to cover, I am sorry to say, a multitude of sins.

Of course, in the most literal sense, it is true: executive branch employees serve at the pleasure of the President. However, blind adherence and single-minded pursuit of this principle ignores that it is equally true that our Nation's prosecutors must be independent, they must be objective, and they must pursue justice wherever the facts lead.

And it ignores that our country is based on the principle of checks and balances. Of course, in this instance this means that we must return Senate confirmation as a certainty to the law, and this is exactly what we do in S. 214--we simply return the law to what it was before that unknown addition was added to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization without the knowledge of Senators.

Since January when this issue was first raised, the Department of Justice has repeatedly stated publicly that it did not intend to avoid Senate confirmation. For example, before the Judiciary Committee on January 18, 2007, the Attorney General testified that DOJ was ``fully committed to try and find presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed U.S. Attorneys for every position.''

However, in e-mails and memos written by his staff, a strategy was outlined that does not show a commitment to Senate confirmation. For example, on September 13, 2006, 3 months before the firing call on December 7, the Attorney General's Chief of Staff sent an e-mail to Monica Goodling, liaison between the Department of Justice and the White House, suggesting that the Department use the new authority slipped into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to facilitate firing U.S. attorneys and replacing them with new ones. The e-mail said:

I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we

utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to

make [U.S. attorney] appointments.

Then, the inference is, by avoiding Senate confirmation, the e-mail goes on:

[W]e can give far less deference to home State Senators and

thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it

far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to

the White House.

This is only one example of discussions among White House and DOJ officials about the benefits of avoiding the Senate, especially when the home State Senators are Democrats.

In another example there is an e-mail chain from December 2006 between the Department of Justice and the White House which discusses how to deal with the opposition of Arkansas' Democratic Senators to the interim appointment of Tim Griffin. I quote:

``I think we should gum this to death.'' . . . The longer

we can forestall [the Senators saying they will never support

Griffin] the better. We should run out the clock . . . ``all

of this should be done in `good faith,' of course.''

The e-mail went on to say:

Our guy is in there so the status quo is good for us . . .

pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney; and

otherwise hunker down.

That is an e-mail that deserves a lot of questions. In addition, in a November 15, 2006, memo regarding the plan to replace U.S. attorneys, ``Step 2: Senator calls,'' outlines that for my State of California and for Michigan and Washington, the strategy was to have Bill Kelly from the White House call ``the home State `Bush political lead,' '' since there was no Republican home State Senators.

So while the Justice Department has said: We consulted with home State Senators--that is true only if they were Republican. If they were Democratic home State Senators they were not, in fact, called.

I believe all of this adds up to a very complex and very serious situation that now has even more questions that need to be asked and answered under oath. For example, we need to know who from the White House was involved in these decisions? Was the plan orchestrated by the White House? Who made these determinations about who to fire and who was involved in the loyalty evaluation? What other U.S. attorneys were targeted for dismissal?

We know there were several but their names have been redacted from the documents we have received. We need to know who are they, why were they on the list, and why did they come off the list?

What were the real reasons used to determine who would be fired, since the evaluations don't line up with the EARS reports? What role, if any, did open public corruption cases play in determining who would be fired? What was the Attorney General's role in the process? What did he know and when did he know it? How can he say he didn't know what was going on with the firing of the U.S. attorneys, even though the White House did, and even though there are e-mails showing that he was consulted?

Was the change to the law in March of 2006 done in order to facilitate the wholesale replacement of all or a large number of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation? We know that somebody suggested all 93 U.S. attorneys should be replaced, at one point. My question is, was this done to facilitate that?

These are just some of the questions I hope our committee will delve into as the investigation continues.

Finally, in an e-mail that discussed avoiding the Senate confirmation process, the Attorney General's Chief of Staff wrote:

There is some risk that we'll lose the authority [to

appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely], but if we don't

ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?

Think about that: There is some risk that we will lose the authority to appoint U.S. attorneys indefinitely, but if we don't ever exercise it, then what is the point of having it?

I believe the time has come for the administration to lose that authority. All these unanswered questions and allegations have demonstrated at the very least one real thing: the law must be returned to what it was prior to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, and the bipartisan bill before the Senate would do just that. Through negotiations with Senator Specter we are now considering legislation that would give the Attorney General authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney but only for 120 days. If after that time the President has not sent up a nominee to the Senate and had that nominee confirmed, then the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney will fall to the district court.

Given all we have learned in the past few months, I believe this is the least we can do to restore the public's faith in an independent system of justice. This bill will also help prevent any future abuse or appearance of politicization of U.S. attorney positions.

The legislation also makes it clear that the 120-day limitation applies to all the interim U.S. attorneys who are currently in place, including those who are the result of the Department's actions in December. These changes are in line with the way the law used to be and would simply be restoring the proper checks and balances that are needed in our system of government.

I urge my colleagues to oppose all amendments and pass a clean bill.

I have noted the distinguished ranking member of the committee is on the Senate floor. Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, March 28, 2007, at 10

a.m., to conduct a markup of S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.

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

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support Judge Otis Wright, a distinguished nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Judge Wright is nominated to a seat that has been designated as a judicial emergency. The Central District of California, based in Los Angeles, is the largest and busiest Federal judicial district in the Nation.

When this Congress began, there were five vacancies on this court more than twice as many as in any other judicial district in the country.

I am pleased that the Senate has already confirmed two new judges for the Central District this year, and I thank Chairman Leahy for moving the California judicial nominees quickly.

Judge Wright is a graduate of California State University at Los Angeles and of the Southwestern School of Law.

After graduating from law school, Judge Wright was a deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice for 3 years. During that time he specialized in criminal appeals.

He went on to join the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, where he became a partner during a career that spanned more than 20 years. He practiced civil litigation in many areas, with a particular focus on insurance coverage litigation.

While in private practice, Judge Wright was a volunteer attorney with the HIV AIDS Legal Services Alliance. His work on behalf of those with HIV and AIDS included housing and employment discrimination cases, as well as preparing wills for the terminally ill.

Judge Wright's public service has not been limited to his legal career: he was a deputy sheriff in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department while attending college and law school, and before that he served in the U.S. Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Reserves.

He is one of only 16 African Americans who have been nominated to be federal judges in the 6 years that President Bush has been in office. During the first 6 years of the Clinton presidency, by contrast, 53 African Americans were nominated. Judge Wright will be a welcome addition to the bench.

In California we have developed a bipartisan process known as the Parsky Commission for selecting Federal district court nominees. Under this system, a committee of lawyers, including Democrats and Republicans, recommends qualified applicants to the President.

I am proud of this system and pleased to say that Judge Wright was recommended by the Parsky Commission. This gives me confidence that he comes to the bench without an ideological agenda and prepared to serve all the people of California.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Wright's nomination.

nomination of john preston bailey

Madam President, I would like to particularly commend the leader, Senator Reid, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, for the work that has been done in putting together a resolution which, as much as possible, can meet some of the objectives of the Democratic majority of this body at the present time. That is not an easy task.

I think Members who participated in this effort took into consideration that in less than a week our Nation will mark 4 years in Iraq. We have spent nearly $400 billion. We have lost more than 3,000 Americans. More than 140,000 of our own brave men and women find themselves trying to salvage a situation that simply cannot be solved through military force.

If I believed there was any chance the military could solve the problem of hundreds of years of hatred between Sunni and Shia by resolving what is effectively a civil war, I would believe this surge and more troops might solve this situation. But I do not.

The only solution rests with the Iraqi Government and the Shia majority. The Iraq of today is embroiled in four different wars--a terribly complex civil conflict that even General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq, says requires a political solution.

Simply put, there is no end in sight. Yet the President insists on escalating our troop presence there. None of this makes sense to me because I deeply believe we must change our course in Iraq. That is why I support the joint resolution before us today.

Where the administration expands our involvement in Iraq, this resolution sets a time limit. Where the administration sees a military solution, this resolution recognizes that the solution must be political. Where the administration calls for more money and more troops, this resolution says: Enough is enough. Where the administration fails to put demands on the Iraqi Government, this resolution tells them: You must take responsibility for your own future.

The Iraqis must realize our commitment is not open-ended and they must stand on their own. How can we ever expect that Iraqis will be able to stand up and make the political choices if we keep such a large, sustained American troop presence in Iraq? We become the buffer, then, that prevents the solution. Only the Iraqis can choose to end this civil war. Only the Iraqis can unify their country if, in fact, the Shia majority want a unified Iraq. Yet this will never happen until we begin to draw down our troop levels. This resolution does exactly that. It is a vehicle for the Congress to show leadership, to tell the President that he has put us on the wrong course and that a political solution is the key to this conflict.

This resolution sets us on that path. It spells out clear deadlines: The phased redeployment of our combat forces must begin within 120 days of the resolution's passage. A goal of March 31, 2008, would be established for the redeployment of our combat forces out of Iraq. This resolution also redefines the mission. A smaller force could remain in Iraq. The mission would be limited to force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterrorism operations.

It is, in a way, similar to the resolution I introduced last month which set an expiration date for the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in Iraq.

This resolution fills a void. It puts a long-term political, diplomatic, and economic strategy for Iraq at the center of our national policy. That is where I believe it should have been a long time ago. It is consistent with the views of the American people, whose opposition to this war and this escalation or surge remains strong and sustained to this very day. But instead of following the will of the American people, this administration is pursuing a surge in forces which appears to be growing. The administration has not set any limits on the number of troops needed or on the duration of the mission or the cost to the American people.

In January, the President said he would send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq at a projected cost of $5.6 billion. Yet just this week the White House asked the Congress for another $2.5 billion to pay for an additional 4,700 support troops for the surge in Iraq. The costs keep rising.

The Pentagon initially said it would be only a matter of months before we could assess whether the surge was a success. I believe the new Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, said we should know within 4 months whether this surge is successful. But the commanders on the ground now suggest we may have to sustain the escalation until well into next year. Yet it is clear our military is under such strain that the only way to maintain those 20 brigades is by extending the deployment of many of our soldiers in Iraq, and by making many more deploy overseas much earlier than planned.

We are breaking our own military in Iraq, even as it becomes increasingly evident that success cannot be achieved militarily.

Just consider these facts. More than 420,000 troops have been deployed at least twice; 420,000 men and women have been deployed twice. More than 50,000 troops have had their tours extended through ``stop-loss'' orders. Troops are being rushed into the field without proper training and without

enough armor. We are leaning more and more heavily on the National Guard. Yet 90 percent of the Guard units in the United States are rated ``not ready.''

I understand why the President may wish to talk about ``encouraging signs'' in Iraq. But the facts show otherwise. Even while the violence in Baghdad has decreased, violence outside the capital has increased. Two hundred Shia pilgrims have been killed in just the past week alone. As insurgents have left Baghdad to avoid the ongoing military crackdown, they have simply melted away into outlying regions, waiting for the pressure to ease.

What makes anybody think this will be any different by the end of this year, the middle of next year, or the end of next year, or any other time? While more American soldiers deploy to Baghdad, the Iraqis have yet to provide all the troops they promised.

There is no end in sight. This joint resolution changes that. It changes course. It redefines the mission. I urge the Senate to vote for it.

I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation that would expand the Federal student loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers.

Nationwide, only 31 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program.

In California, that number is even smaller: only 21 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree.

To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning.

Recruiting and retaining teachers with such qualifications is critical to ensuring that our children start elementary school ready to learn.

A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), found that ``teachers with higher education levels were found to have more high quality language activities and more creative activities in their classrooms.''

In order to give every child a jump start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving.

Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better.

Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of about $21,000--almost half the amount of elementary school teachers' salary of about $43,000.

Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, makes it increasingly difficult to attract and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers.

We must provide incentives to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in this important field.

This legislation would allow recent college graduates (obtaining a minimum of a bachelor's degree), and current Head Start teachers without a degree, to receive up to $5,000 of their Federal student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a qualified Head Start program; and provide Head Start teachers with the same opportunity as currently offered to eligible elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 5 years of service.

Providing our Nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified Head Start teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success.

Head Start is the primary Federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing.

Research shows that Head Start is a smart investment in our children's future.

For example, a 2003 Kindergarten Readiness: Head Start Success study of more than 600 graduates in San Bernardino County, CA, demonstrated that society receives nearly nine dollars in benefits, i.e. increased earnings and employment, for every one dollar invested in Head Start children.

That is why we must act now.

Every teacher that the Head Start program loses impacts the quality and access to services for our Nation's neediest children, and ultimately can impact their future success.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Voinovich in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with Senator Durbin to restore our Nation's agricultural inspection functions to the Department of Agriculture.

This bill would transfer the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program--AQI--from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection back to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--(APHIS).

In 2003, as part of the Homeland Security Act, agricultural inspections at all points of entry in the United States were transferred from the USDA to DHS. Four years later, it is clear that fewer agricultural inspections are being conducted at our borders and ports.

I have heard this message loud and clear from: California Secretary of Agriculture A.G. Kawamura, California Farm Bureau, the American Landscape and Nursery Association, the California Agriculture Commissioners and Sealers Association, the Nisei Farmers League, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, Defenders of Wildlife, and the San Diego County Agriculture Commissioner, the Contra Costa County Agriculture Commissioner, and many California farmers.

These groups have observed not only the decrease in the number of inspections since the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--but also decreased communication between the program and State agricultural organizations.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office produced a report that highlighted the problems associated with the transfer of the program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security, entitled ``Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease.''

The GAO study found:

The inspection rate at several key American points of entry has significantly decreased. Inspections decreased in Miami by 12.7 percent, in Boston by 17.9 percent, and San Francisco by 21.4 percent.

Sixty percent of agricultural inspection specialists believed they were doing either ``somewhat'' or ``many fewer'' inspections since the transfer.

Sixty-three percent of survey respondents did not believe that their port had enough agriculture specialists to carry out agriculture duties.

Lastly, 64 percent of the agriculture specialists reported that their work was not respected by Customs and Border Patrol.

These statistics are deplorable.

The failure to protect our borders from the invasion of agricultural pests

places our farmlands and forests at great risk of infestation.

USDA estimates nationally that agricultural pests cost the American agricultural industry an annual loss of about $41 billion.

In California alone, pest infestations cost my State's farmers about $3 billion. This amount includes crops lost in the quarantine, and the cost of measures taken to control and eradicate pest outbreaks.

The farmers in my State continue to battle against serious agricultural pests, such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, the Asian long-horned beetle, the Mediterranean fruit fly, and many others.

During the time that DHS has been in charge of agriculture inspections, Fresno County experienced its first fruit fly outbreak, quarantine, and eradication.

According to the Fresno County Department of Agriculture, a 105- square-mile area had to be quarantined due to an outbreak of the peach fruit fly. The pest is indigenous to Asia, and is believed to have entered the country on smuggled fruit carried by an airline passenger. The eradication effort cost approximately $1 million.

The interception of pests at inspection points, coupled with the elimination and eradication of pest outbreaks, is a top priority for California agriculture organizations. And these groups have asked for help in improving the agricultural inspection process.

But this is not just a California problem. Farmers and foresters from every corner of our country have faced the imposing threat of a foreign agriculture pest invasion.

Here are just a few examples of the pests that threaten our Nation:

The glassy-winged sharpshooter is a devastating new pest for California. Since its migration into California in 1990 from the southeastern United States, the glassy-winged sharpshooter population there has ballooned throughout southern California. This pest transmits Pierce's disease, which threatens 450,000-plus acres of winegrapes, more than 330,000 acres of raisin and table grapevines, a crop production of $4 billion and associated economic activity of $45 billion. There is no known cure for Pierce's disease. The glassy-winged sharpshooter also threatens crops such as almonds, citrus, and peaches as well as native plants, shrubs, and trees.

Citrus canker is believed to have originated in Southeast Asia and was discovered in Florida in 1995. It causes lesions on the leaves, stems, and fruit of citrus trees, causes leaves and fruit to drop prematurely, and makes fruit too unsightly to be sold. The Federal Government has spent $378 million for eradication, with little results.

The Asian long-horned beetle was introduced to the United States in August 1996 inside solid wood packing material from China. The beetle is a serious threat to hardwood trees and has no known natural predator in the United States. The beetle has the potential to destroy millions of acres of America's hardwood forests and industries such as lumber, maple syrup, nursery, and tourism accumulating over $41 billion in losses. The beetle has spread to New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.

In the summer of 2002, scientists detected a new exotic insect in Michigan, the emerald ash borer. This insect is an invasive species originally from Asia. To date, it has killed or damaged millions of ash trees in Michigan. It has been detected in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, and in Ontario, Canada.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--NASDA-- recognizes the impending danger and has first-hand experience of how inspections have changed since the DHS takeover.

NASDA recently announced that one of its key recommendations is to reassign cargo inspection from DHS to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS.

NASDA explains: APHIS has ``the expertise and communication system to carry out a focused and effective agricultural safeguarding effort at our borders.''

Our Nation's agriculture is too important to leave open to the risk of invasion of agricultural pests. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Let us reprioritize the plant and animal border inspections and strengthen the anti-terrorism mission of DHS by returning the Agricultural Quarantine Inspections to its logical place, the United States Department of Agriculture.

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

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Voinovich to introduce legislation that would expand the Federal student loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers.

Nationwide, only 31 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a baccalaureate or advanced degree program.

In California, that number is even smaller: only 21 percent of Head Start teachers have completed a bachelor's degree.

To prepare Head Start children for elementary school, we must recruit highly qualified teachers who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning.

Recruiting and retaining teachers with such qualifications is critical to ensuring that our children start elementary school ready to learn.

A survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), found that ``teachers with higher education levels were found to have more high quality language activities and more creative activities in their classrooms.''

In order to give every child a jump start in life, we must continue to recruit highly qualified teachers to the Head Start field and prevent the best teachers from leaving.

Many Head Start programs across the country, including in California, are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better.

Nationally, the average Head Start teacher earns a salary of about $21,000--almost half the amount of elementary school teachers' salary of about $43,000.

Low pay, combined with increasing student debt, makes it increasingly difficult to attract and retain highly qualified Head Start teachers.

We must provide incentives to encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in this important field.

This legislation would allow recent college graduates (obtaining a minimum of a bachelor's degree), and current Head Start teachers without a degree, to receive up to $5,000 of their Federal student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching in a qualified Head Start program; and provide Head Start teachers with the same opportunity as currently offered to eligible elementary and secondary school teachers to receive up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness in exchange for 5 years of service.

Providing our Nation's low-income children with access to highly educated and qualified Head Start teachers so that they enter school ready to learn is critical to their future success.

Head Start is the primary Federal program that has the potential to reach out to low-income children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing.

Research shows that Head Start is a smart investment in our children's future.

For example, a 2003 Kindergarten Readiness: Head Start Success study of more than 600 graduates in San Bernardino County, CA, demonstrated that society receives nearly nine dollars in benefits, i.e. increased earnings and employment, for every one dollar invested in Head Start children.

That is why we must act now.

Every teacher that the Head Start program loses impacts the quality and access to services for our Nation's neediest children, and ultimately can impact their future success.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Voinovich in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with Senator Durbin to restore our Nation's agricultural inspection functions to the Department of Agriculture.

This bill would transfer the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program--AQI--from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection back to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--(APHIS).

In 2003, as part of the Homeland Security Act, agricultural inspections at all points of entry in the United States were transferred from the USDA to DHS. Four years later, it is clear that fewer agricultural inspections are being conducted at our borders and ports.

I have heard this message loud and clear from: California Secretary of Agriculture A.G. Kawamura, California Farm Bureau, the American Landscape and Nursery Association, the California Agriculture Commissioners and Sealers Association, the Nisei Farmers League, the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists, Defenders of Wildlife, and the San Diego County Agriculture Commissioner, the Contra Costa County Agriculture Commissioner, and many California farmers.

These groups have observed not only the decrease in the number of inspections since the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--but also decreased communication between the program and State agricultural organizations.

Last year, the Government Accountability Office produced a report that highlighted the problems associated with the transfer of the program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security, entitled ``Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and Disease.''

The GAO study found:

The inspection rate at several key American points of entry has significantly decreased. Inspections decreased in Miami by 12.7 percent, in Boston by 17.9 percent, and San Francisco by 21.4 percent.

Sixty percent of agricultural inspection specialists believed they were doing either ``somewhat'' or ``many fewer'' inspections since the transfer.

Sixty-three percent of survey respondents did not believe that their port had enough agriculture specialists to carry out agriculture duties.

Lastly, 64 percent of the agriculture specialists reported that their work was not respected by Customs and Border Patrol.

These statistics are deplorable.

The failure to protect our borders from the invasion of agricultural pests

places our farmlands and forests at great risk of infestation.

USDA estimates nationally that agricultural pests cost the American agricultural industry an annual loss of about $41 billion.

In California alone, pest infestations cost my State's farmers about $3 billion. This amount includes crops lost in the quarantine, and the cost of measures taken to control and eradicate pest outbreaks.

The farmers in my State continue to battle against serious agricultural pests, such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, the Asian long-horned beetle, the Mediterranean fruit fly, and many others.

During the time that DHS has been in charge of agriculture inspections, Fresno County experienced its first fruit fly outbreak, quarantine, and eradication.

According to the Fresno County Department of Agriculture, a 105- square-mile area had to be quarantined due to an outbreak of the peach fruit fly. The pest is indigenous to Asia, and is believed to have entered the country on smuggled fruit carried by an airline passenger. The eradication effort cost approximately $1 million.

The interception of pests at inspection points, coupled with the elimination and eradication of pest outbreaks, is a top priority for California agriculture organizations. And these groups have asked for help in improving the agricultural inspection process.

But this is not just a California problem. Farmers and foresters from every corner of our country have faced the imposing threat of a foreign agriculture pest invasion.

Here are just a few examples of the pests that threaten our Nation:

The glassy-winged sharpshooter is a devastating new pest for California. Since its migration into California in 1990 from the southeastern United States, the glassy-winged sharpshooter population there has ballooned throughout southern California. This pest transmits Pierce's disease, which threatens 450,000-plus acres of winegrapes, more than 330,000 acres of raisin and table grapevines, a crop production of $4 billion and associated economic activity of $45 billion. There is no known cure for Pierce's disease. The glassy-winged sharpshooter also threatens crops such as almonds, citrus, and peaches as well as native plants, shrubs, and trees.

Citrus canker is believed to have originated in Southeast Asia and was discovered in Florida in 1995. It causes lesions on the leaves, stems, and fruit of citrus trees, causes leaves and fruit to drop prematurely, and makes fruit too unsightly to be sold. The Federal Government has spent $378 million for eradication, with little results.

The Asian long-horned beetle was introduced to the United States in August 1996 inside solid wood packing material from China. The beetle is a serious threat to hardwood trees and has no known natural predator in the United States. The beetle has the potential to destroy millions of acres of America's hardwood forests and industries such as lumber, maple syrup, nursery, and tourism accumulating over $41 billion in losses. The beetle has spread to New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.

In the summer of 2002, scientists detected a new exotic insect in Michigan, the emerald ash borer. This insect is an invasive species originally from Asia. To date, it has killed or damaged millions of ash trees in Michigan. It has been detected in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, and in Ontario, Canada.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--NASDA-- recognizes the impending danger and has first-hand experience of how inspections have changed since the DHS takeover.

NASDA recently announced that one of its key recommendations is to reassign cargo inspection from DHS to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS.

NASDA explains: APHIS has ``the expertise and communication system to carry out a focused and effective agricultural safeguarding effort at our borders.''

Our Nation's agriculture is too important to leave open to the risk of invasion of agricultural pests. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Let us reprioritize the plant and animal border inspections and strengthen the anti-terrorism mission of DHS by returning the Agricultural Quarantine Inspections to its logical place, the United States Department of Agriculture.

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

Mr. President, as we approach the 92nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, I rise today in support of a resolution introduced by Senator Richard Durbin, calling on the President to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Specifically, this resolution would: encourage the President to incorporate the memory and lessons of the Armenian Genocide into the foreign policies of the United States, and; urge the President to accurately portray this terrible episode as ``genocide'' in his annual statement.

Between 1915 and 1923, as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished and 500,000 were exiled by the Ottoman government in a systematic campaign of murder, deportation, and forced starvation.

Ninety-two years later, nearly all of the survivors are no longer with us. Yet their solemn voices still echo, urging us to remember them and work to ensure that their suffering was not in vain.

In my 15 years in the U.S. Senate, I have received thousands of letters from members of the Armenian-American community in my home State of California, encouraging our government to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Many of them are descendants of the genocide's survivors, who immigrated to the United States and, over the course of a few decades, built a strong and vibrant community in California and elsewhere.

For the genocide's victims, there can be no justice. But by preserving and cherishing their memory, we can begin healing the wounds that still linger.

The recent murder of Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist who championed human rights and advocated Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide, serves as a chilling reminder of the dangers that loom in our silence. An open, informed, and tolerant discussion of the genocide is necessary for true and lasting reconciliation between present-day Turkey and the Armenian people.

Equally important, recalling the Armenian Genocide is essential to the prevention of ongoing and future atrocities, including the genocide in Darfur. By taking an unequivocal stance against genocide--regardless of where or when it occurs--we and other members of the international community will send a strong message that such atrocities will not be tolerated. Let us remember Adolf Hitler's ominous words on the eve of the 1939 Nazi invasion of Poland: ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?''

So today, let us speak loudly. Let us join the hundreds of thousands of Armenian Americans in my home State of California and across the United States, as well as millions of people around the world, in acknowledging and commemorating the Armenian Genocide. Let us ensure that the legacy of these atrocities is one of reconciliation and hope. And let us fulfill the promises our parents made us, and we made to our children: never again.

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals living in San Bruno, CA.

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

In the 18 years that the Plascencias have been here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel.

Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way, thereby leaving them in the dark. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them.

Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation.

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

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

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

Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the past 14 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The President of Vince's Shellfish, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest,'' and ``reliable.''

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

For 5 years, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Her colleagues, many of whom have written to me in support of her, commend her ``unending enthusiasm'' and have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.''

In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Nurse Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.''

The physicians themselves confirm this. For example, Dr. Laurie Weisberg, the Chief of Oncology at Kaiser Permanente, writes that Mrs. Plascencia ``is truly an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it functions effectively.''

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

This private relief bill is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community.

Christina, 14, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student at Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno.

Erika, 10, and Alfredo Jr., 8, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, the principal of Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.''

The Plascencia's youngest child is 3-year-old Daisy.

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

It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika, and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life.

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

Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not

my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this private relief bill, and ask my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be entered into the Record immediately following this statement.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007, along with Senators Hagel, Kennedy, Feingold, Cantwell, and Kerry. This important legislation will govern the way the Federal Government treats undocumented immigrant children who end up or show up all alone at our borders or within the United States.

I first introduced legislation similar to this bill in January 2001. It has now passed twice out of the Senate. Yet, unfortunately, both times it stalled in the House of Representatives.

Despite the passage of time, this bill remains vital to the proper treatment of young undocumented children who get caught within our Federal system. My hope is that this is the year that this bill will become law.

Every year, more than 7,000 undocumented and unaccompanied children are apprehended. Most are from Central America, but others come from Mexico, India, China, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and remote places around the world. Some have parents or other relatives who the child is trying to find in the United States, but many have no one.

These children come to the United States for many reasons: reuniting with family, pursuing education or employment, escaping family violence or abuse, fleeing political or religious persecution, and seeking protection from gang violence or recruitment.

Some children are brought here by adults seeking to exploit them for commercial sex work, domestic servitude, or other forced labor. Sometimes they're too young to understand why they've been sent to the United States at all.

These children are the most vulnerable immigrants who come to this country and I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that they are treated humanely and fairly.

Historically, U.S. immigration law and policies have been developed and implemented without regard to their effect on children. This result has been similar to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole--it just cannot work.

Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles, let alone courtroom and administrative procedures. Because of this, children who may very well be eligible for relief are often deported back to the very life- threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.

For example, the New York Times recently reported the story of Young Zheng, who was 14 years old when his parents sent him from China to the United States.

He was first detained for a year at a facility that was later closed due to abysmal conditions. Fortunately, he was then transferred to Chicago, where he was assigned a child advocate who spent time with him and urged his release to his relatives.

Six months later, Young was released to live with his uncle in Akron, OH. Then, immigration authorities suddenly attempted to deport Young in April 2005.

Young so feared being deported that he tried to hurt himself. Young was terrified that he would be subject to torture by the Chinese government or that the traffickers would exact physical revenge. The traffickers had already threatened retribution against his family if they did not repay the trafficking fee of $60,000.

With the help of a team of pro bono attorneys and the child advocate, Young's removal was stayed. In April 2006, Young received his green card and is now a model high school student.

This example dramatically highlights why this legislation is still so critical. It was only because Young was lucky enough that pro bono attorneys and a child advocate happened to intervene in his case that he was not deported. And, they intervened only after he was detained for 1 year in squalid conditions in the United States.

According to an analysis of Department of Justice data in 2000, those children fortunate enough to find representation, usually through a pro bono attorney, are more than four times as likely to be granted asylum.

Sadly, many children never get the help of a child advocate or a pro bono lawyer. Worse, for those children who are victims of human trafficking, their only advice may come from lawyers hired by the traffickers who care nothing for the child's best interest.

The legislation that I am introducing today builds on the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which adopted components of the bill that I first introduced during the 107th Congress.

The Homeland Security Act transferred responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services.

This change finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system that pitted the enforcement side of the Immigration and Naturalization Service against the benefits side of that same agency in the care of unaccompanied alien children.

I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was included in the Homeland Security Act, and that by all accounts, the transition in the care of children between the affected agencies has gone well.

Yet, because the Homeland Security Act was crafted quickly, it left the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Refugee Resettlement without clearly distinguished mandates and responsibilities in some key areas, including legal custody, age determination procedures, and State court dependency proceedings.

Congress now has a responsibility to go beyond the simple transfer of children from one agency to another to actually laying out the process and steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are treated fairly and humanely.

We must provide the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice with the tools they will need to succeed in their missions regarding the care of unaccompanied alien children after the transfer of jurisdiction took place.

First of all, I want to stress that this bill is not about benefits, as it provides no new immigration benefit to unaccompanied alien children. Rather, this bill is about the process of how we treat these children under the current system.

The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' provides guidance and instruction to the Office of Refugee and Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the following areas: first, in the custody, release, family reunification and detention of unaccompanied alien children; second, it provides access by unaccompanied alien children to child advocates and pro bono counsel; third, it streamlines the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program and provides guidance on the

training of federal government officials and private parties who come into contact with unaccompanied alien children; fourth, it requires the issuance of guidelines specific to children's asylum claims; fifth, it authorizes appropriations for the care of unaccompanied alien children; and, sixth, it amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide additional responsibilities and powers to the Office of Refugee Resettlement with respect to unaccompanied alien children.

Central throughout the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' are two concepts: (1) The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and, (2) In all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a priority protecting the interests of these children who are not criminals or do not pose a risk to our national security.

Imagine the fear of an unaccompanied alien child, in the United States alone, without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system he or she does not understand, provided no access to pro bono counsel or a child advocate, placed in jail with adults or housed with juveniles with serious criminal convictions.

I find it hard to believe that our country would allow children to be treated in such a manner.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children to treat them fairly and humanely.

I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Heartland Alliance, Amnesty International USA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.

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

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals living in San Bruno, CA.

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

In the 18 years that the Plascencias have been here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel.

Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way, thereby leaving them in the dark. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them.

Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation.

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

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

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

Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the past 14 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The President of Vince's Shellfish, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest,'' and ``reliable.''

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

For 5 years, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Her colleagues, many of whom have written to me in support of her, commend her ``unending enthusiasm'' and have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.''

In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Nurse Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.''

The physicians themselves confirm this. For example, Dr. Laurie Weisberg, the Chief of Oncology at Kaiser Permanente, writes that Mrs. Plascencia ``is truly an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it functions effectively.''

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

This private relief bill is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community.

Christina, 14, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student at Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno.

Erika, 10, and Alfredo Jr., 8, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, the principal of Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.''

The Plascencia's youngest child is 3-year-old Daisy.

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

It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika, and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language, and way of life.

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

Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not

my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this private relief bill, and ask my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be entered into the Record immediately following this statement.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007, along with Senators Hagel, Kennedy, Feingold, Cantwell, and Kerry. This important legislation will govern the way the Federal Government treats undocumented immigrant children who end up or show up all alone at our borders or within the United States.

I first introduced legislation similar to this bill in January 2001. It has now passed twice out of the Senate. Yet, unfortunately, both times it stalled in the House of Representatives.

Despite the passage of time, this bill remains vital to the proper treatment of young undocumented children who get caught within our Federal system. My hope is that this is the year that this bill will become law.

Every year, more than 7,000 undocumented and unaccompanied children are apprehended. Most are from Central America, but others come from Mexico, India, China, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and remote places around the world. Some have parents or other relatives who the child is trying to find in the United States, but many have no one.

These children come to the United States for many reasons: reuniting with family, pursuing education or employment, escaping family violence or abuse, fleeing political or religious persecution, and seeking protection from gang violence or recruitment.

Some children are brought here by adults seeking to exploit them for commercial sex work, domestic servitude, or other forced labor. Sometimes they're too young to understand why they've been sent to the United States at all.

These children are the most vulnerable immigrants who come to this country and I believe we have a special obligation to ensure that they are treated humanely and fairly.

Historically, U.S. immigration law and policies have been developed and implemented without regard to their effect on children. This result has been similar to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole--it just cannot work.

Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles, let alone courtroom and administrative procedures. Because of this, children who may very well be eligible for relief are often deported back to the very life- threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.

For example, the New York Times recently reported the story of Young Zheng, who was 14 years old when his parents sent him from China to the United States.

He was first detained for a year at a facility that was later closed due to abysmal conditions. Fortunately, he was then transferred to Chicago, where he was assigned a child advocate who spent time with him and urged his release to his relatives.

Six months later, Young was released to live with his uncle in Akron, OH. Then, immigration authorities suddenly attempted to deport Young in April 2005.

Young so feared being deported that he tried to hurt himself. Young was terrified that he would be subject to torture by the Chinese government or that the traffickers would exact physical revenge. The traffickers had already threatened retribution against his family if they did not repay the trafficking fee of $60,000.

With the help of a team of pro bono attorneys and the child advocate, Young's removal was stayed. In April 2006, Young received his green card and is now a model high school student.

This example dramatically highlights why this legislation is still so critical. It was only because Young was lucky enough that pro bono attorneys and a child advocate happened to intervene in his case that he was not deported. And, they intervened only after he was detained for 1 year in squalid conditions in the United States.

According to an analysis of Department of Justice data in 2000, those children fortunate enough to find representation, usually through a pro bono attorney, are more than four times as likely to be granted asylum.

Sadly, many children never get the help of a child advocate or a pro bono lawyer. Worse, for those children who are victims of human trafficking, their only advice may come from lawyers hired by the traffickers who care nothing for the child's best interest.

The legislation that I am introducing today builds on the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which adopted components of the bill that I first introduced during the 107th Congress.

The Homeland Security Act transferred responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services.

This change finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system that pitted the enforcement side of the Immigration and Naturalization Service against the benefits side of that same agency in the care of unaccompanied alien children.

I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was included in the Homeland Security Act, and that by all accounts, the transition in the care of children between the affected agencies has gone well.

Yet, because the Homeland Security Act was crafted quickly, it left the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Refugee Resettlement without clearly distinguished mandates and responsibilities in some key areas, including legal custody, age determination procedures, and State court dependency proceedings.

Congress now has a responsibility to go beyond the simple transfer of children from one agency to another to actually laying out the process and steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are treated fairly and humanely.

We must provide the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice with the tools they will need to succeed in their missions regarding the care of unaccompanied alien children after the transfer of jurisdiction took place.

First of all, I want to stress that this bill is not about benefits, as it provides no new immigration benefit to unaccompanied alien children. Rather, this bill is about the process of how we treat these children under the current system.

The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' provides guidance and instruction to the Office of Refugee and Resettlement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the following areas: first, in the custody, release, family reunification and detention of unaccompanied alien children; second, it provides access by unaccompanied alien children to child advocates and pro bono counsel; third, it streamlines the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program and provides guidance on the

training of federal government officials and private parties who come into contact with unaccompanied alien children; fourth, it requires the issuance of guidelines specific to children's asylum claims; fifth, it authorizes appropriations for the care of unaccompanied alien children; and, sixth, it amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide additional responsibilities and powers to the Office of Refugee Resettlement with respect to unaccompanied alien children.

Central throughout the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' are two concepts: (1) The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and, (2) In all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a priority protecting the interests of these children who are not criminals or do not pose a risk to our national security.

Imagine the fear of an unaccompanied alien child, in the United States alone, without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system he or she does not understand, provided no access to pro bono counsel or a child advocate, placed in jail with adults or housed with juveniles with serious criminal convictions.

I find it hard to believe that our country would allow children to be treated in such a manner.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act'' will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children to treat them fairly and humanely.

I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Heartland Alliance, Amnesty International USA and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.

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

Mr. President, today Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter, Harkin and I are introducing legislation to ban human reproductive cloning, while ensuring that important medical research goes forward under strict oversight by the federal government.

The Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2007 would create a straightforward ban on human reproductive cloning. Despite disagreements over various types of biomedical research, there is near unanimous agreement that scientists should not create human clones.

At the same time, this legislation will enable research to be conducted that provides hope to millions of Americans suffering from paralysis and debilitating diseases including juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease.

The concerns with human reproductive cloning are many, and are both scientific and ethical in nature. The National Academy of Sciences explains that using cloning, or nuclear transfer to create a child could require hundreds of pregnancies and result in many abnormal late- term fetuses. Some scientists question whether a human clone could ever be created without significant abnormalities.

These concerns led the National Academy of Sciences to conclude that there is an ``ethical and scientific consensus that nuclear transfer for reproductive purposes has no place in legitimate research.''

That's why this legislation will make it a crime to clone a human being, or attempt to clone a human being by implanting cells that result from nuclear transplantation into the uterus (there are no exceptions); prohibit the shipment of the product of nuclear transplantation in international or interstate commerce for the purposes of human cloning; prohibit the export of an unfertilized blastocyst, a form of an embryo 5 to 7 days after conception, to any foreign country that does not ban human cloning.

These prohibitions ensure that valuable research undertaken in the United States will not be shipped abroad and used to create a human clone in a country without restrictions.

These prohibitions are supported by strict penalties, including: A maximum ten-year prison term for cloning, or attempting to clone a human being; a fine of either $1 million, or three times any profits made for any human cloning attempt. A violator is subject to whichever fine is greater, and these financial penalties are in addition to prison time.

Any real or personal property used to commit a violation of this ban, or derived from violation of this ban, will be subject to forfeiture.

The time to pass a legal framework for addressing reproductive cloning is now, before any rogue scientist successfully creates a human clone.

At the same time, this legislation does not prohibit scientists from working with embryonic stem cells in the hopes of discovering cures and treatments for dozens of catastrophic diseases.

This legislation draws a bright line between human reproductive cloning and promising medical research using somatic cell nuclear transplantation for the sole purpose of deriving embryonic stem cells.

Somatic cell nuclear transplantation is the process by which scientists derive embryonic stem cells that are an exact genetic match as the patient. Those embryonic stem cells will one day be used to correct defective cells such as non-insulin producing cells or cancerous cells. Then those patients will not be forced to take immuno- suppressive drugs and risk the chances of rejection since the new cells will contain their own DNA.

It is truly astonishing that somatic cell nuclear transplantation research may one day be used to regrow tissue or organs that could lead to treatments and cures for diseases that afflict up to 100 million Americans. What we are talking about here is research that does not even involve sperm and an egg.

I believe it is essential that this research be conducted with federal government oversight and under strict ethical requirements.

That is why the legislation mandates that eggs used in this research be unfertilized and--prohibits the purchase or sale of unfertilized eggs to prevent ``embryo farms'' or the possible exploitation of women by coercing them into egg sales.

Imposes strong ethics rules on scientists, mandating informed consent by egg donors, and include safety and privacy protections;

Prohibits any research on an unfertilized blastocyst after 14 days-- After 14 days, an unfertilized blastocyst begins differentiating into a specific type of cell such as a heart or brain cell and is no longer useful for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research;

Requires that all egg donations be voluntary, and that there is no financial or other incentive for egg donations;

Requires that nuclear transplantation occur in labs completely separate from labs that engage in in vitro fertilization.

And for those who violate or attempt to violate the ethical requirements of the legislation, they will be subject to civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation.

To be clear, this is research that involves an unfertilized blastocyst. No sperm are involved. It is conducted in a petri dish and cannot occur beyond 14 days. It is also prohibited from ever being implanted into a woman to create a child.

For those who believe that the clump of cells in a petri dish that we are talking about is a human life, that is a moral decision each person must make for himself, but to impose that view on the more than 100 million of our parents, children and friends who suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer is immoral.

The voters of Missouri affirmed this approach in 2006, approving a State ballot initiative banning reproductive cloning, while protecting important and potentially lifesaving medical research. In the absence of Federal guidance, many other states are taking action, sometimes contradictory.

Sixteen States have passed laws pertaining to human cloning.

Thirteen of these States prohibit reproductive cloning--Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia.

Five States prohibit biomedical research like somatic nuclear transfer, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota.

Six States explicitly permit it, New Jersey, California, Missouri, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa.

It is time to standardize these policies, under a common set of ethical guidelines. This patchwork of laws will result only in confusion, forbidding some researchers from conducting lifesaving research, while their colleagues in a neighboring state receive state funding to do the same work.

Just like we have observed with the President's prohibition on embryonic stem cell research, this uncertainty is forcing our best and brightest researchers overseas, to countries that fully embrace the promise of embryonic stem cell research.

They have a number of overseas options: The United Kingdom is providing at least $80 million to fund ongoing research, including somatic cell nuclear transfer research. This is helping to attract scientific talent from all over the world, including the United States.

Roger Pedersen, a renowned scientist, left the University of California San Francisco in 2001, citing the unfriendly research climate in the United States. He is now conducting human stem cell research at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.

He and his UK team are exploring the biology behind pluripotent, or multipurpose stem cells, and looking for ways to use them for treatments.

The Australian Parliament lifted a ban on therapeutic cloning research in December 2006.

It will allow Australian scientists to fully pursue important cures, and now provides an attractive alternative for American scientists who do not want to wait any longer for Federal guidance.

It is time to provide some certainty and sanity in our national policy. We must stop unethical human reproductive cloning, while unleashing our scientists to develop cures for catastrophic diseases that impact millions.

I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill and help turn the hopes of millions of Americans into reality.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.

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

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig and 14 of my colleagues in support of a resolution designating the week of March 12 through 17, 2007, as National Safe Place Week.

This resolution recognizes the participating businesses, community organizations, youth service agencies, and volunteers that are part of the YMCA National Safe Place Program and work for the safety and well being of at-risk youth.

Youth today face a growing amount of pressure in their daily lives at school, at home, and in the community. For some youth, problems include abuse or neglect at home, drug or alcohol addictions of family members and friends, trouble at school or dangerous situations on a date.

Young people who face these serious situations should not feel left alone and should have a place to go to in their community.

Over the past 24 years, the National Safe Place Program has provided immediate help to more than 200,000 youth in crisis at nearly 16,000 Safe Place locations and with counseling by phone.

This important program is currently operated by 140 agencies serving 700 communities in 40 States--bringing together the private and public sector to reach out and help at-risk youth who might be neglected, abused, threatened or in unsafe situations.

In my home State of California, there are nine designated Safe Place programs with 1,738 Safe Place sites located in over 65 communities which have served more than 5,000 youth.

National Safe Place sites include fast food restaurants, convenience stores, fire stations, schools, libraries, office buildings or even a city bus and are marked by large, yellow Safe Place signs displayed prominently in front windows.

In Fresno, CA, for example, city buses are all designated as Safe Places.

Any youth can walk into a Safe Place site and receive immediate help from a trained volunteer, and further help from a Safe Place staff person who can provide counseling, residential assistance or professional referrals, as needed.

The National Safe Place Week recognizes the commitment, resources, and energy of thousands of businesses, community organizations and volunteers who make this effective, growing network of support for youth possible. In addition, it seeks to increase awareness of the crises that youth face today.

I am encouraged by the National Safe Place Program's positive impact on communities throughout the Nation, and I hope that more communities will choose to participate in this innovative program.

The National Safe Place Program brings us closer to making our country safe for youth, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.