Floor Statements

Mr. President, Senators Craig, Kennedy, Martinez, Boxer, Voinovich and I are once again introducing legislation that will address the chronic labor shortage in our Nation's agricultural industry. This bill is a priority for me--and for the tens of thousands of farmers who are currently suffering--and I hope we will move it forward early in this Congress.

The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, is the product of more than ten years of work. It is a bipartisan bill supported by growers, farmers, and farm workers alike. It passed the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill last spring in the 109th Congress. It is time to move this bill forward.

The agricultural industry is in crisis. Farmers across the Nation report a 20 percent decline in labor.

The result is that there are simply not enough farm workers to harvest the crops.

The Nation's agricultural industry has suffered. If we do not enact a workable solution to the agricultural labor crisis, we risk a national production loss of $5 billion to $9 billion each year,

according to the American Farm Bureau.

California, in particular, will suffer. California is the single largest agricultural state in the nation. California agriculture accounts for $34 billion in annual revenue. There 76,500 farms that produce half of the nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland.

California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, cotton, just to name a few.

Many of the farmers who grow these crops have been in the business for generations. They farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them.

The sad consequence of the labor shortage is that many of these farmers are giving up their farms. Some are leaving the business entirely. Others are bulldozing their fruit trees--literally pulling out trees that have been in the family for generations--because they do not have the labor they need to harvest their fruit.

Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. And our pears, our apples, our oranges will come from foreign sources.

The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce here, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, from other countries who have the labor they need.

We will put American farmers out of business. And there will be a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment, inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending and insurance. Jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer.

The reality is that Americans have come to rely on undocumented workers to harvest their crops for them.

In California alone, we rely on approximately one million undocumented workers to harvest the crops. The United Farm Workers estimate that undocumented workers make up as much as 90 percent the farm labor payroll.

Americans simply will not do the work. It is hard, stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours. Farm workers must leave home and travel from farm to farm to plant, prune, and harvest crops according to the season.

We must come to terms with the fact that we rely on an undocumented migrant work force. We must bring those workers out of the shadows and create a legal and enforceable means to provide labor for agriculture. That realization is what led to the long and careful negotiations creating AgJOBS.

The AgJOBS bill is a two part bill. Part one identifies and deals with those undocumented agricultural workers who have been working in the United States for the past 2 years or more. Part two creates a more usable H-2A Program, to implement a realistic and effective guest worker program.

The first step requires undocumented agricultural workers to apply for a ``blue card'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the past 2 years. The blue card entitles the worker to a temporary legal resident status.

The blue card itself is encrypted and machine readable; it is tamper and counterfeit resistant, and contains biometric identifiers unique to the farm worker.

The second step requires that a blue card holder work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years for at least 100 workdays a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year.

Blue card workers would have to pay a $500 fine. The workers can travel abroad and reenter the United States and they may work in other, non-agricultural jobs, as long as they meet the agricultural work requirements.

The blue card worker's spouse and minor children, who already live in the United States, may also apply for a temporary legal status and identification card, which would permit them to work and travel.

The total number of blue cards is capped at 1.5 million over a five year period and the program sunsets after 5 years.

At the end of the required work period, the blue card worker may apply for a green card to become a legal permanent resident.

There are also a number of safeguards. If a blue card worker does not apply for a green card, or does not fulfill the work requirements, that individual can be deported.

Likewise, a blue card holder who commits a felony, three misdemeanors, or any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of $500, cannot get a green card and can be deported.

This program, for the first time, allows us to identify those hundreds of thousands of farm workers who now work in the shadows. It requires the farm workers to come forward and to be identified in exchange for the right to work and live legally in the United States. And it gives farmers the legal certainty they need to hire the workers they need.

The program also modifies the H-2A guest worker program so that it realistically responds to our agricultural needs.

Currently, the H-2A program is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. Farmers cannot get the labor when they need it. AgJOBS offers a much-needed reform of the outdated system.

The labor certification process, which often takes 60 days or more, is replaced by an ``attestation'' process. The employer can file a fax- back application form agreeing to abide by the requirements of the H-2A program. Approval should occur in 48 to 72 hours.

The interstate clearance order to determine whether there are U.S. workers who can qualify for the jobs is replaced by a requirement that the employer file a job notification with the local office of the state Employment Security Agency. Advertising and positive recruitment must take place in the local labor market area.

Agricultural associations can continue to file applications on behalf of members.

The statutory prohibition against ``adversely affecting'' U.S. workers is eliminated. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is instead frozen for 3 years, and thereafter indexed by a methodology that will lead to its gradual replacement with a prevailing wage standard.

Employers may elect to provide a housing allowance in lieu of housing if the governor determines that there is adequate rental housing available in the area of employment.

Inbound and return transportation and subsistence are required on the same basis as under the current program, except that trips of less than 100 miles are excluded, and workers whom an employer is not required to provide housing are excluded.

The motor vehicle safety standards for U.S. workers are extended to H-2A workers.

Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. Requirements are the same as current law.

Petitions extending aliens' stay or changing employers are valid upon filing.

Employers may apply for the admission of new H-2A workers to replace those who abandoned their work or are terminated for cause, and the Department of Homeland Security is required to remove H-2A aliens who abandoned their work.

H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant.

A new limited federal right of action is available to foreign workers to enforce the economic benefits required under the H-2A program, and any benefits expressly offered by the employer in writing. A statute of limitations of three years is imposed.

Finally, lawsuits in State court under State contract law alleging violations of the H-2A program requirements and obligations are expressly preempted. Such State court lawsuits have been the venue of choice for litigation against H-2A employers in recent years.

AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everyone knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration enforcement tightens up, and increasing numbers of people are prevented from crossing the borders or are being deported, the result is our crops go unharvested.

We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted over and over again. Senator Craig, I,

and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill.

This is our opportunity to solve a real problem.

I ask my colleagues to join Senator Craig, Senator Kennedy, Senator Martinez, Senator Boxer, Senator Voinovich and me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: social security numbers.

The bill I propose is identical to legislation that I introduced last year. This is the fifth Congress in which I have proposed legislation to protect social security numbers. I stand before you again today because I believe that this issue is too important to ignore.

We all know that once a person's social security number is compromised, the path to identity theft is a short one. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 10 million Americans have their identities stolen each year.

The crime takes many forms. Thieves can obtain social security numbers through public records--marriage licenses, professional licenses, and countless other public documents--many of which are available on the internet.

These stolen social security numbers then act like virtual keys, allowing the thieves to unlock an individual's identity.

Thieves open credit cards and charge them to the max. Often, the victim does not even realize what has happened until they are denied credit in the future because of the unpaid debt on the fraudulent credit cards.

Thieves open bank accounts in the victim's name and write bad checks.

Thieves get driver's licenses or identification cards, and even apply for government benefits in the victim's name.

Identity theft is serious. A person whose identity is stolen can lose thousands of dollars and take months or even years to regain their good name and credit.

The damage, loss, and stress of identity theft are considerable.

Victims may lose job opportunities, or be denied loans for education, housing, or cars because of negative information on their credit reports. They may even be arrested for crimes they did not commit.

The ease with which social security numbers can be accessed is distressing, but also, unnecessary.

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

This legislation is simple and necessary to stop the growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens.

As we move further into the information age and rely more on information sharing, this problem will only get worse, unless we take action. I urge my colleagues to support the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act.

It is vitally important that Congress take immediate action to ensure that individuals are notified when companies, Federal agencies, and other institutions suffer security breaches that could jeopardize their personal information.

The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act is a simple, straightforward bill that would require that notice be sent to individuals in the event of a data breach which compromises their personal information.

Providing individuals with knowledge that their personal information has been accessed by a hacker will allow them to take action to prevent or limit the damage caused by these security breaches.

The need for such legislation is, unfortunately, self-evident given the spate of data breaches we have all read and heard about. Unfortunately, almost every week we learn of a new breach.

For example, there have been major data breaches in just the last few months at Boeing, UCLA, the Colorado Department of Human Services, Starbucks, the Chicago Voters' Database, and Akron Children's Hospital.

Given this ongoing problem, it is not surprising that Americans have made it clear that they want Congress to act. A September 2005 CBS News/New York Times national poll on privacy and identity theft found that 89 percent of Americans are ``concerned'' about the theft of their personal identity information and 68 percent of Americans feel that Congress should do more to regulate personal data and its collection.

According to the Federal Trade Commission identity theft affects approximately 10 million Americans each year. In 2004, there were 635,173 identity theft and fraud complaints made to the Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Sentinel. In 2004, identity fraud cost Americans $52.6 billion dollars. Over the past 2 years, approximately 18 million individuals in this country have been exposed or affected by identity theft.

Data breaches threaten individual's economic and emotional well being. A person whose identity is stolen can lose thousands of dollars and it can take months or even years for a person to regain their good name and credit. So when a data breach occurs, people have a right to find out as soon as possible.

That is why I have introduced and tried to pass legislation that would: require that the Federal Government and business entities notify individuals when there has been a security breach involving their personal data; ensure that the notice is provided without unreasonable delay; create very limited exceptions to notification for national security and law enforcement purposes, as well as instances in which law enforcement certifies that there is no threat of harm to the individual; provide civil remedies against those who do not notify individuals and the provisions of the bill would be enforced by State attorney generals; and pre-empt all state laws so that there is a single, nationwide notification requirement.

I strongly believe that individuals have a right to be notified when their most sensitive information is compromised--because it is truly their information.

The instant legislation will give all Americans more control and confidence about the safety of their sensitive personal information. They will know when their data has been compromised so that they take the appropriate steps to protect themselves.

In November 2005, the Judiciary Committee approved the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. That bill included similar notification legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate took no further action and the bill expired at the end of the 109th Congress.

Since then, the problem of identity theft has worsened--there have been numerous large scale data security breaches involving companies, federal agencies, and universities.

We cannot afford to keep waiting to act. I urge the Senate to pass the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act to give Americans the information they need to protect themselves from identity theft.

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

Mr. President, last November, John York, the owner of the San Francisco 49ers, announced his intention to move the team to Santa Clara.

The 49ers have been an integral part of San Francisco for the past 60 years. The team was founded in 1946 as part of the All-American Football Conference and joined the National Football League in 1950, when the two leagues merged.

The team's name is derived from the city's history, celebrating the miners who rushed to San Francisco in search of gold in 1849 and helped build the city.

The team has been a part of San Francisco for so long, and is such a central part of its culture, that the prospect of the team leaving concerns many of the people of San Francisco.

In response, I am introducing the Football Fairness Act that provides a new and limited antitrust exemption that is designed to slow the frequent movement of National Football League teams and prevent communities from suffering the financial and intangible costs of these moves.

As Mayor of San Francisco, I had the pleasure of witnessing several 49ers' Super Bowl victory parades.

What I remember most about those victories is the way the team's success brought the city together. I've also seen other cities unite in celebration of their teams' championships.

Our football teams are more than just businesses. They are a common denominator that cut across class, race, and gender to bond the people of a city. They are a key component of a city's culture and identity.

There are instances where a city cannot support a team, but it is disheartening when a city that can--and does--support a team is nevertheless abandoned and the loyalty of the fans discarded.

In 1985, then 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo explored the possibility of moving the team to San Jose. As Mayor of San Francisco, I worked with the 49ers and we were able to reach an agreement to keep the team in San Francisco.

Today, I remain hopeful that an agreement to keep the team will be reached that will benefit the people of San Francisco and the 49ers' organization.

However, this situation highlights a broader trend of NFL teams abandoning cities after those communities invested substantial funds and good will into a team.

This persistent movement is bad for our cities.

In the last 25 years, National Football League teams have moved 7 times: Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles in 1982, Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis in 1984, St. Louis Cardinals to Tempe in 1988, Los Angeles Rams to St. Louis in 1994, Los Angeles Raiders to Oakland in 1994, Cleveland Browns to Baltimore in 1996, and Houston Oilers to Nashville in 1997.

However, during that same time period only 1 Major League Baseball franchise moved. In 2004, with the approval of Major League Baseball, the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals.

Why has there been stability in baseball, while National Football League teams have moved so frequently?

Unlike the NFL, Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption which gives the league and its owners control over the movement of its teams.

When the Oakland Raiders sought to relocate to Los Angeles in 1982, the National Football League's owners voted to prevent the move. However, the courts found that the NFL's intervention was a violation of antitrust laws, and the League could do nothing to prevent the Raiders from moving.

Just 12 years later, the Raiders left Los Angeles to return to the same city and stadium it had abandoned.

If a city is incapable of supporting a team, it is understandable that a franchise would move. However, of the six cities that have seen National Football League teams leave in the last 25 years, five of those cities later received another NFL franchise.

It is clear that NFL teams are not moving because cities cannot support teams.

To address the real costs imposed on communities by the persistent and unnecessary franchise movement that we

have witnessed, I am introducing the Football Fairness Act.

The Football Fairness Act is straightforward and it is limited.

It would permit the National Football League to review and restrict its teams' movement. This should help keep the fans who support the NFL from being left out of the equation.

The Act is targeted. It limits the exemption from antitrust laws solely to the National Football League's ability to prevent the movement of its franchises. Consequently, the Act will not diminish competition.

I urge my colleague to support the Football Fairness Act and help prevent the damage done to fans and communities by frequent NFL franchise movement.

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

Mr. President, I have discussed with Senator Bennett a proposal for a unanimous consent agreement on a speaking order. I would like quickly to move it as a request for unanimous consent that I be given 15 minutes; Senator Bennett, as ranking member, 15 minutes; Senator Tester, 10 minutes; Senator Lott, if he cares to come down, 10 or 15 minutes which, if it is 15, will balance with 15 on the Democratic side; Senator Nelson, 15; the next open slot for a Republican, 15 minutes; and Senator Salazar, 15 minutes.

I ask that at 2:15, for 15 minutes each, the majority leader be recognized, followed by the minority leader if he requests time.

Mr. President, let me vitiate that last part because we would like to have Senators Lieberman and Collins recognized at 2:15 for 15 minutes each and then Senators Reid and McConnell, if they so desire. That is the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, it is an honor to take the floor today as the new chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee to help lead the battle for meaningful and credible ethics reform. In the last election, the message was loud and clear: It is time to change the way business is done in the Nation's Capitol. Passage of this ethics reform package is the most direct action we can take to show the American people that tighter rules and procedures are in place and that the corrupt practices of the few will no longer be permitted. Strong criminal sanctions for these practices will henceforth be in place.

Passage of this bill will demonstrate once and for all that we care more about representing the American people than the perks of power.

I am especially pleased to be joined in this effort by my new ranking member, Senator Bennett, with whom I look to work very closely in this new Congress. I am also pleased that Senator Lieberman, the new chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Senator Collins, the ranking member of that committee, have agreed to join us on the floor as comanagers of this bill.

On March 29, 2006, by a 90-to-8 vote, the Senate passed S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, which has now been introduced by the majority and minority leaders as S. 1. This legislation was a combination of separate bills reported by the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It came to the floor early last year, at a time when Americans were becoming increasingly concerned about corrupt and criminal practices by a group of lobbyists, administration officials, congressional staff and, yes, even Members of Congress.

Also, various questions were raised about the K Street Project, in which lobbyist firms, trade associations, and other business groups were told they

would encounter a closed door in Congress unless they hired members of the then majority party.

The Senate-passed bill was a strong ethics, earmark and lobbying reform package. Unfortunately, the House voted instead to soften the provisions, lift the limits on party expenditures in general elections, and regulate 527 groups. A stalemate ensued and no conference report was returned. Now, with a new Congress under Democratic leadership, the Senate's first bill, S. 1, is essentially the same text as the Senate- passed S. 2349.

I believe one message that was very clear in the last election was the need for Congress to immediately take steps to restore the public's trust. I would like to briefly outline the major provisions of the base bill and then follow up with some discussion about the improvements that are being considered in a bipartisan leadership substitute.

This is now the base bill. It prohibits gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists. Section 106 bans all gifts and meals from lobbyists. Section 107(a) bans travel paid for by lobbyists or in which lobbyists participate. Section 107(b) requires full disclosure of travel by Members or their staffs on noncommercial airplanes. It closes the revolving door. Section 241 extends the existing lobbying ban for former Members and senior executive branch personnel from 1 to 2 years. That is a consequential change. Sections 108 and 241 toughen the existing lobbying ban for senior staff--those making 75 percent of a Member's salary or more--by prohibiting them from lobbying anyone in the Senate, not just their former boss or committee, as is presently required.

Section 109 requires public disclosure by Members of any negotiations for private sector employment.

Section 105 strips floor privileges from former Members who become registered lobbyists so that no former Senator can come to the Senate floor to lobby.

Section 110 bars immediate family members from lobbying a Member or his or her office, though they could still lobby other offices.

Section 103 requires that a sponsor of an earmark be identified with the additional spending requests in the earmark on all bills, amendments, and conference reports.

Section 104 requires conference reports, including the sponsors of earmarks in these reports, be posted on the Internet at least 48 hours before a vote unless the Senate determines by a majority vote that it is urgent to proceed to the legislation. So there is a hiatus in which names of sponsors will be published on the Internet for at least 48 hours.

Section 102 subjects any out-of-scope matter added by a conference report to a 60-vote point of order. What does ``out of scope'' mean? It means a matter not approved by either body of the Congress. If you have a matter not approved by either body, and you want to bring it up in a conference report, you would have to withstand the test of a 60-vote point of order if a Member saw fit to bring that point of order. The Parliamentarian tells me that would not include earmarks added in conference which were not approved by the House or Senate. Members should know that. Earmarks are not included, just out-of-scope issues. We might want to take that into consideration.

As I have said before, I strongly believe such earmarks which have been added without being voted on by the subcommittee, committee, House or Senate, should be subject to a 60-vote point of order. I am interested in working with any colleagues on this matter.

The provision at issue was based on a stand-alone bill I introduced with Senator Lott last year, but it was changed as it moved forward. Even though it may not include earmarks, it is an important provision which will go a long way toward stopping controversial provisions often added in the dark of night.

Transparency in the Senate: Section 111 makes the K Street project-- that is, partisan efforts to influence private sector hiring--a violation of Senate rules.

Section 232 requires ethics training for members of staff.

Section 234 requires the Ethics Committee to issue annual reports on its activity--not to name names but to give the public a better idea about how active the committee has been.

Section 114 of the bill requires Senators to identify holds they place on legislation. This is an important improvement. All too often, important legislation has been blocked by an anonymous hold, and nobody knows who it is. Here, one person can stop a bill that has been dutifully passed out of the committee and passed by the Senate. This measure does not prevent such holds but requires that the Senator doing this file a public report in the Congressional Record within 3 days.

My colleagues from the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will have much to say about the lobbyist disclosure provisions because they fall within the jurisdiction of their committee.

Let me go into a few major provisions under discussion that would likely come with a substitute amendment. The first is sporting and entertainment events. The substitute requires the proper and full valuation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events. No more cut- rate tickets to combat the below-market prices being charged Members and staff as a way of getting around the gift ban. It would close the revolving door. The substitute prohibits Members from negotiating for private sector employment that involves lobbying activity while still holding office. Senior staff would have to inform the Ethics Committee if they enter into negotiations for private sector employment.

The substitute will also have a repeal on the current exception to the revolving door lobbying ban for Federal staffers hired by Indian tribes, something my office has worked on with Senator Reid.

Now, earmarks. Over the last 12 years, the number of earmarks have tripled to 16,000, worth $64 billion a year. The process has clearly gotten out of control. An important first step is disclosure. The substitute provides much more vigorous transparency. In the bill approved by the Senate last March, an earmark is defined as ``a provision that specifies the identity of a non-Federal entity to receive assistance and the amount of that assistance.'' The term ``assistance'' means budget authority, contract authority, loan authority, and other expenditures and tax expenditures or other revenue items.

In the substitute, earmarks will be defined much more broadly to include not only non-Federal entities but any provision that benefits only one non-Federal entity even though the original funding is routed through a Federal agency. This is meant to get at the kind of earmarks notoriously offered by former Representative Cunningham that effectively directed funds to a non-Federal entity but did not directly name the entity.

We will also include targeted tax benefits and targeted tariff benefits in the definition of earmarks.

Another section is a provision sponsored by Senators Conrad and Gregg, chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. This amendment requires a Congressional Budget Office score for all conference reports before they are considered by the Senate. In emergencies, this could be waived by 60 votes.

The substitute will express the sense of the Senate on fair and open conference committee procedures. What that means is for the majority party not to exclude the minority party from the conference. We Democrats know what this is like. We would like to end that and have conferences open for the free discussion of Members of both political parties. This is a sensible provision. We should put an end to the practice that existed in this last Congress.

There will also be a ban on dead-of-night additions to conference reports after they have already been signed by Members. I actually couldn't believe this went on, but it does, and we should end it.

There are two important areas on which no agreement has been reached. Our majority leader had proposed broadening gift reform in S. 1 to prohibit gifts not only from lobbyists but also from organizations that employ or retain lobbyists, which makes sense. He had proposed broadening the travel provisions of S. 1 to prohibit travel paid for not only by lobbyists but also by organizations that employ or retain lobbyists and prohibit lobbyists' involvement in that travel. I also think that makes sense.

The minority leadership did not agree on the two proposals, so I now expect to see our majority leader offer an amendment on this separately. I will be pleased to support it.

In conclusion, a USA Today Gallup Poll last month said that only 15 percent of those polled gave our House high marks for honesty. That was down from 25 percent in 2001 when Members got their best score since 1976. When one looks at the scandals that were exposed last year, that is not surprising. The ties between lobbyists and lawmakers must be broken. Yes, the public has a constitutional right to petition Congress, but that right should not be limited to those who seek any special access.

The 2006 election saw the largest congressional shift since 1994. Even with the war on Iraq on voters' minds, polls showed Americans more concerned about ethics in government. The stakes are high. It is imperative we act. We have a vehicle to do so before the Senate. I hope we will.

I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his excellent comments, and I have learned something about his life which I found very interesting. I did not know he had started his distinguished career as a lobbyist, and I clearly saw the growth of that institution in the book the Senator held up. I thank the Senator very much for his comments. I look forward to working with him in the committee.

Mr. President, I would like to ask all Members, beginning this afternoon, to please come and file your amendments. We are eager to have them. In the unanimous consent agreement, the Senator from Montana is next, Mr. Tester. However, I do not see him on the Senate floor. So let me say this: The way we will run this is by doing a unanimous consent agreement and trying to line up speakers, if that is agreeable with the ranking member. If people are not here, they will lose their place in line.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator, is that agreeable to the ranking member?

That is correct.

I see the Senator from Montana just emerging for his first appearance before this body, and he is therefore recognized for--I have 10 minutes down.

I ask the Senator, would you require 10 minutes or 15 minutes because we will give the same amount to the distinguished Senator Lott?

Fine. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of time to the Senator from Montana.

Yes, if the Senator will withhold the requst for a quorum call, Mr. President, I note that it is almost 12:30 p.m. I ask that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m.

Madam President, I regret the Senator from Illinois left the floor because I thought I might ask a question of him. But he has left the floor. I see a Senator on the other side ready to speak, so I will defer at this time.

Madam 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 ask that Members know that the floor is open, that now is the time, and that hopefully they will file any amendment and come down forthwith and speak to them.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, we have three amendments so far by Senator Vitter. They are being vetted with respect to committees. We are not at the present time prepared for a vote. My view is the likelihood of a vote tonight is remote. I have been in our cloakroom trying to learn if I can say there are no more votes. The closest I can come is to say the likelihood of a vote is not high. Does that help the Senator?

Mr. President, I very sincerely urge Members, please come to the floor if Members have amendments. Please file amendments. Please speak to your amendments. We will never finish this bill unless Members are here. The floor has been open all afternoon for amendments. With the exception of one Senator, there are no amendments before the Senate. I hope Members are listening. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

I have been asking to do just that for 1 hour. Yes, of course.

I respect the Senator for getting the job done.

If I may, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. I made three appeals for amendments thus far. What I am concerned about is at the very end of the consideration of the bill, we will be flooded with amendments and not have the time to debate the matter. Now is that time. The Senator is absolutely correct. Hopefully we will both be listened to.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that protects the retirement benefits earned by public employees and eliminates barriers which discourage many Americans from pursuing careers in public service. This bill will repeal two provisions of the Social Security Act--the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision--which unfairly reduce the retirement benefits earned by public employees such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

The Government Pension Offset reduces a public employee's Social Security spousal or survivor benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of his or her public pension.

Take the case of a widowed, retired police officer who receives a public pension of $600 per month. His job in the local police department was not covered by Social Security, yet his wife's private- sector employment was. An amount equal to two-thirds of his public pension, or $400 each month, would be cut from his Social Security survivor benefits. If this individual is eligible for $500 in survivor benefits, the Government Pension Offset provision would reduce his monthly benefits to $100.

In most cases, the Government Pension Offset eliminates the spousal benefit for which an individual qualifies. In fact, 9 out of 10 public employees affected by the Government Pension Offset lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their spouse paid Social Security taxes for many years.

The Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits by up to 50 percent for retirees who have paid into Social Security and also receive a public pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.

While the reforms that led to the creation of the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision were meant to prevent public employees from being unduly enriched, the

practical effect is that those providing critical public services are unjustly penalized.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Pension Offset provision alone reduces earned benefits for more than 300,000 Americans each year, by upwards of $3,600. In some cases, for those living on fixed incomes, this represents the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

Nearly one million Federal, State, and municipal workers, as well as teachers and other school district employees, are unfairly held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits.

Private-sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $656 in average monthly career earnings. However, under the Windfall Elimination Provision, retired public employees are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $656 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $300 per month.

This unfair reduction in retirement benefits is inequitable. The Social Security Fairness Act will allow government pensioners the chance to receive the same 90 percent of their benefits to which nongovernment pension recipients are entitled.

We must do more to encourage people to pursue careers in public service. Unfortunately, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision make it more difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; and, it does so at a time when we should be doing everything we can to recruit the best and brightest to these careers.

California's police force needs to add more than 10,000 new officers by 2014--a growth of nearly 15 percent--while hiring more than 15,000 additional officers to replace those who leave the force.

It is estimated that public schools will need to hire between 2.2 million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 2009 because of record enrollments. The projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers and critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring additional teachers.

California currently has more than 300,000 teachers but will need to double this number by 2010, to 600,000 teachers, in order to keep up with student enrollment levels.

Most importantly, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision hinder efforts to recruit new math and science teachers from the private sector. As our world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is imperative that our school children receive the finest math and science education to ensure our Nation's future competitiveness in the global economy.

It is counterintuitive that on the one-hand, policymakers seek to encourage people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, while on the other hand, those wishing to do so are discouraged because they are clearly told that their Social Security retirement benefits will be significantly reduced.

Now that we are witnessing the practical effects of these 20 year old provisions, I hope that Congress will pass legislation to address the unfair reduction of benefits that essentially sends the message that if you do enter public service, your family will suffer and will be unable to receive the full retirement benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled.

I understand that we are facing deficits and repealing the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision will be costly.

I am open to considering all options that move us toward our goal of removing this inequity by allowing individuals to keep the Social Security benefits to which they are entitled while promoting public sector employment.

We should respect, not penalize, our public service employees. I hope that my colleagues will join me in sending this long overdue message to our Nation's public servants, that we value their contributions and support giving all Americans the retirement benefits they have earned and deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chambliss and a number of other co-sponsors in introducing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Reauthorization Act. This bill would take the $1,095,000,000 amount which Congress authorized for the Byrne/ JAG grant program in fiscal year 2006 in the Violence Against Women and DOJ Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162), and reauthorize that same amount for the program in each year through fiscal year 2012.

The ``Byrne/JAG'' program resulted from the 2005 consolidation of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, and the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants.

Named after New York Police Officer Edward Byrne, who was killed in the line of duty in 1988, it provides critical support to State and local law enforcement officials.

Byrne/JAG is a law enforcement funding program run by the Department of Justice. For more than 20 years, grants from Byrne/JAG and its predecessor programs have funded state and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control programs.

One of the most popular uses of Byrne/JAG funds is to support multi- jurisdictional task forces, which help fight drug and firearm traffickers, gangs, pharmaceutical diversion, and organized crime in America's communities.

Results from Byrne/JAG are real. According to data compiled by the National Criminal Justice Association from self-reported metrics submitted by State Administering Agencies for the 2004 grant year, task forces funded in part by Byrne/JAG grants were responsible for: 54,050 weapons seized; 5,646 methamphetamine labs seized; and $250,000,000 in cash and personal property seized, not including the value of narcotics seized. They were also responsible for removing massive quantities of controlled substances from America's streets, including: 2.7 million grams of amphetamine and methamphetamine; 1.8 million grams of powder cocaine; 278,200 grams of ``crack'' cocaine; 73,300 grams of heroin; 75 million cultivated and noncultivated marijuana plants, and 27 million kilograms of marijuana.

As Ron Brooks, President of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC) testified last June, ``more than one- third of all meth lab seizures were conducted by Byrne-funded task forces.''

We get good returns on this investment. The National Sheriff's Association estimates that, with 2,794 personnel in multi- jurisdictional drug tasks forces, this equates to: 79 drug arrests per full-time employee (221,475 total); 6 kilograms of cocaine seized per FTE. (17,991 total); 2 kilograms of meth seized per FTE, 5,452 kilos total''; 400 grams of heroine seized per FTE, 1,177 kilos total, 306 lbs. of processed marijuana per FTE, 855,309 total; and 3 meth lab responses per FTE, 8,983 total.

And our rural communities are especially dependent on Byrne/JAG grants. Byrne/JAG grants to the States are allocated 60/40, so that 40 percent of the funds must be set aside for distribution to local governments. In short, this is one of the only sources of federal funds for sheriffs and police chiefs in many of our smaller towns and counties.

When Byrne/JAG and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program were well funded, state and local law enforcement officers produced real results. It is no coincidence that, during this period, we saw more than a decade of steady reductions in violent crime.

Unfortunately, Federal funding for these justice assistance programs has been dramatically slashed in recent years. As late as Fiscal Year 2003, the Byrne grant programs had been funded at a level of $900 million. In Fiscal Year 2004, however, it was reduced to $725 million. And in FY2005, Byrne/JAG was cut to $634 million.

That year in California, the Governor issued a notice to the law enforcement community, advising that this change would ``significantly reduce the amount of drug control and criminal justice funding in California''--by a whopping $14 million in one year, just for my State.

In Fiscal Year 2006, the program was cut even further, to only $416.5 million--amounting to a 54 percent cut from Fiscal Year 2003. In Fiscal Year 2006, and then again in Fiscal Year 2007, the President's budget proposed eliminating the Byrne program entirely.

In response, the Senate voted to restore Byrne funding in Fiscal Year 2006 to its Fiscal Year 2003 level of $900 million, but that increase was taken out of the final conference report.

For Fiscal Year 2007, the Senate again restored $900 million in a budget amendment, but no appropriations bill was passed.

What have we seen in the wake of these cuts to State and local law enforcement and the Byrne/JAG program?

After a decade of declines, FBI reports for 2005 showed a rise in violent crime in every region of our country--an overall increase of 2.5 percent, the largest reported increase in violent crime in the U.S. in 15 years.

For the first six months of 2006, the numbers for violent crime were even worse--up again in every region, and with a surge of nearly 3.7 percent. And the number of robberies--which many criminologists see as a leading indicator of future activity--was up by almost 10 percent. The reduction in Byrne/JAG and other similar funding is not the only reason for this increase. Experts also cite the spread of criminal street gangs like MS-13, for example, as a major factor in the jump in violent crime.

When we are faced with such challenges, however, the Byrne/JAG program has a clear role to play in addressing America's growing violent crime problem.

A national integrated threat demands a national integrated response, with State and local law enforcement leading the way, but with the Federal Government providing meaningful support. Byrne/JAG facilitates. that design, by allowing State and local leaders to leverage resources in key areas,

and facilitating collaboration among those in law enforcement, corrections, treatment, and prevention.

A review of programs around the country reveals that some Byrne/JAG- funded task forces receive between $30 and $40 from State or local sources for every Federal dollar they receive. Rather than supplanting other sources, Byrne/JAG often leverages Federal dollars, by providing the incentive needed for local agencies to cooperate, communicate, share information and build good cases.

Because State and local cops account for 97 percent of all drug arrests in America, further Byrne/JAG cuts will have a clear effect, as NNOAC President Ron Brooks testified: [T]ake away the Byrne-JAG drug task forces and I guarantee you will have fewer lab seizures . . . The meth supply will continue to grow, as will the toxic meth waste that is being dumped in many neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, some of this is already happening. After the recent cuts to Byrne/JAG, the governor of Texas eliminated funding for most drug task forces in his State, because he decided the limited funding available was needed instead for border enforcement. Narcotics officers throughout the United States also report a similar trend of eliminations and decreases of task forces.

Without multi-jurisdictional task forces, officers will revert to working within their own stovepipes, arresting mere targets of opportunity instead of focusing on organizational targets that have a disproportionate impact on the problem. Police officers will return to working within their own teams rather than cooperating and using shared intelligence to identify wider drug trafficking investigations.

Since 9/11, we have understandably placed greater emphasis on the terrorist threat from abroad, and protecting our borders. But to save the perimeter and lose the heartland to international drug cartels, American street gangs, local meth cookers and neighborhood drug traffickers would be a hollow victory indeed.

Last year, a group of 15 organizations--including NNOAC, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs' Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Alliance of Drug Enforcement Agencies, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals--all came together to call for the Byrne/JAG program to be funded at the $1.1 billion level.

The 15 groups represented more than 456,000 law enforcement officers, drug court judges, treatment practitioners, and prosecutors from over 2,000 counties and more than 5,000 community prevention coalitions. And for the 110th Congress, funding Byrne/JAG at the $1.1 billion level remains a top law enforcement priority.

Passage of this bill will respond to such requests from law enforcement, and also send a clear message that any further efforts by this Administration to reduce or eliminate the Byrne/JAG program in the Fiscal Year 208 budget will be strongly resisted by this Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that protects the retirement benefits earned by public employees and eliminates barriers which discourage many Americans from pursuing careers in public service. This bill will repeal two provisions of the Social Security Act--the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision--which unfairly reduce the retirement benefits earned by public employees such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

The Government Pension Offset reduces a public employee's Social Security spousal or survivor benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of his or her public pension.

Take the case of a widowed, retired police officer who receives a public pension of $600 per month. His job in the local police department was not covered by Social Security, yet his wife's private- sector employment was. An amount equal to two-thirds of his public pension, or $400 each month, would be cut from his Social Security survivor benefits. If this individual is eligible for $500 in survivor benefits, the Government Pension Offset provision would reduce his monthly benefits to $100.

In most cases, the Government Pension Offset eliminates the spousal benefit for which an individual qualifies. In fact, 9 out of 10 public employees affected by the Government Pension Offset lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their spouse paid Social Security taxes for many years.

The Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits by up to 50 percent for retirees who have paid into Social Security and also receive a public pension, such as from a teacher retirement fund.

While the reforms that led to the creation of the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision were meant to prevent public employees from being unduly enriched, the

practical effect is that those providing critical public services are unjustly penalized.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Pension Offset provision alone reduces earned benefits for more than 300,000 Americans each year, by upwards of $3,600. In some cases, for those living on fixed incomes, this represents the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

Nearly one million Federal, State, and municipal workers, as well as teachers and other school district employees, are unfairly held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits.

Private-sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $656 in average monthly career earnings. However, under the Windfall Elimination Provision, retired public employees are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $656 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $300 per month.

This unfair reduction in retirement benefits is inequitable. The Social Security Fairness Act will allow government pensioners the chance to receive the same 90 percent of their benefits to which nongovernment pension recipients are entitled.

We must do more to encourage people to pursue careers in public service. Unfortunately, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision make it more difficult to recruit teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; and, it does so at a time when we should be doing everything we can to recruit the best and brightest to these careers.

California's police force needs to add more than 10,000 new officers by 2014--a growth of nearly 15 percent--while hiring more than 15,000 additional officers to replace those who leave the force.

It is estimated that public schools will need to hire between 2.2 million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by 2009 because of record enrollments. The projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers and critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring additional teachers.

California currently has more than 300,000 teachers but will need to double this number by 2010, to 600,000 teachers, in order to keep up with student enrollment levels.

Most importantly, the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision hinder efforts to recruit new math and science teachers from the private sector. As our world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is imperative that our school children receive the finest math and science education to ensure our Nation's future competitiveness in the global economy.

It is counterintuitive that on the one-hand, policymakers seek to encourage people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, while on the other hand, those wishing to do so are discouraged because they are clearly told that their Social Security retirement benefits will be significantly reduced.

Now that we are witnessing the practical effects of these 20 year old provisions, I hope that Congress will pass legislation to address the unfair reduction of benefits that essentially sends the message that if you do enter public service, your family will suffer and will be unable to receive the full retirement benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled.

I understand that we are facing deficits and repealing the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision will be costly.

I am open to considering all options that move us toward our goal of removing this inequity by allowing individuals to keep the Social Security benefits to which they are entitled while promoting public sector employment.

We should respect, not penalize, our public service employees. I hope that my colleagues will join me in sending this long overdue message to our Nation's public servants, that we value their contributions and support giving all Americans the retirement benefits they have earned and deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chambliss and a number of other co-sponsors in introducing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Reauthorization Act. This bill would take the $1,095,000,000 amount which Congress authorized for the Byrne/ JAG grant program in fiscal year 2006 in the Violence Against Women and DOJ Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162), and reauthorize that same amount for the program in each year through fiscal year 2012.

The ``Byrne/JAG'' program resulted from the 2005 consolidation of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, and the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants.

Named after New York Police Officer Edward Byrne, who was killed in the line of duty in 1988, it provides critical support to State and local law enforcement officials.

Byrne/JAG is a law enforcement funding program run by the Department of Justice. For more than 20 years, grants from Byrne/JAG and its predecessor programs have funded state and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control programs.

One of the most popular uses of Byrne/JAG funds is to support multi- jurisdictional task forces, which help fight drug and firearm traffickers, gangs, pharmaceutical diversion, and organized crime in America's communities.

Results from Byrne/JAG are real. According to data compiled by the National Criminal Justice Association from self-reported metrics submitted by State Administering Agencies for the 2004 grant year, task forces funded in part by Byrne/JAG grants were responsible for: 54,050 weapons seized; 5,646 methamphetamine labs seized; and $250,000,000 in cash and personal property seized, not including the value of narcotics seized. They were also responsible for removing massive quantities of controlled substances from America's streets, including: 2.7 million grams of amphetamine and methamphetamine; 1.8 million grams of powder cocaine; 278,200 grams of ``crack'' cocaine; 73,300 grams of heroin; 75 million cultivated and noncultivated marijuana plants, and 27 million kilograms of marijuana.

As Ron Brooks, President of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition (NNOAC) testified last June, ``more than one- third of all meth lab seizures were conducted by Byrne-funded task forces.''

We get good returns on this investment. The National Sheriff's Association estimates that, with 2,794 personnel in multi- jurisdictional drug tasks forces, this equates to: 79 drug arrests per full-time employee (221,475 total); 6 kilograms of cocaine seized per FTE. (17,991 total); 2 kilograms of meth seized per FTE, 5,452 kilos total''; 400 grams of heroine seized per FTE, 1,177 kilos total, 306 lbs. of processed marijuana per FTE, 855,309 total; and 3 meth lab responses per FTE, 8,983 total.

And our rural communities are especially dependent on Byrne/JAG grants. Byrne/JAG grants to the States are allocated 60/40, so that 40 percent of the funds must be set aside for distribution to local governments. In short, this is one of the only sources of federal funds for sheriffs and police chiefs in many of our smaller towns and counties.

When Byrne/JAG and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program were well funded, state and local law enforcement officers produced real results. It is no coincidence that, during this period, we saw more than a decade of steady reductions in violent crime.

Unfortunately, Federal funding for these justice assistance programs has been dramatically slashed in recent years. As late as Fiscal Year 2003, the Byrne grant programs had been funded at a level of $900 million. In Fiscal Year 2004, however, it was reduced to $725 million. And in FY2005, Byrne/JAG was cut to $634 million.

That year in California, the Governor issued a notice to the law enforcement community, advising that this change would ``significantly reduce the amount of drug control and criminal justice funding in California''--by a whopping $14 million in one year, just for my State.

In Fiscal Year 2006, the program was cut even further, to only $416.5 million--amounting to a 54 percent cut from Fiscal Year 2003. In Fiscal Year 2006, and then again in Fiscal Year 2007, the President's budget proposed eliminating the Byrne program entirely.

In response, the Senate voted to restore Byrne funding in Fiscal Year 2006 to its Fiscal Year 2003 level of $900 million, but that increase was taken out of the final conference report.

For Fiscal Year 2007, the Senate again restored $900 million in a budget amendment, but no appropriations bill was passed.

What have we seen in the wake of these cuts to State and local law enforcement and the Byrne/JAG program?

After a decade of declines, FBI reports for 2005 showed a rise in violent crime in every region of our country--an overall increase of 2.5 percent, the largest reported increase in violent crime in the U.S. in 15 years.

For the first six months of 2006, the numbers for violent crime were even worse--up again in every region, and with a surge of nearly 3.7 percent. And the number of robberies--which many criminologists see as a leading indicator of future activity--was up by almost 10 percent. The reduction in Byrne/JAG and other similar funding is not the only reason for this increase. Experts also cite the spread of criminal street gangs like MS-13, for example, as a major factor in the jump in violent crime.

When we are faced with such challenges, however, the Byrne/JAG program has a clear role to play in addressing America's growing violent crime problem.

A national integrated threat demands a national integrated response, with State and local law enforcement leading the way, but with the Federal Government providing meaningful support. Byrne/JAG facilitates. that design, by allowing State and local leaders to leverage resources in key areas,

and facilitating collaboration among those in law enforcement, corrections, treatment, and prevention.

A review of programs around the country reveals that some Byrne/JAG- funded task forces receive between $30 and $40 from State or local sources for every Federal dollar they receive. Rather than supplanting other sources, Byrne/JAG often leverages Federal dollars, by providing the incentive needed for local agencies to cooperate, communicate, share information and build good cases.

Because State and local cops account for 97 percent of all drug arrests in America, further Byrne/JAG cuts will have a clear effect, as NNOAC President Ron Brooks testified: [T]ake away the Byrne-JAG drug task forces and I guarantee you will have fewer lab seizures . . . The meth supply will continue to grow, as will the toxic meth waste that is being dumped in many neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, some of this is already happening. After the recent cuts to Byrne/JAG, the governor of Texas eliminated funding for most drug task forces in his State, because he decided the limited funding available was needed instead for border enforcement. Narcotics officers throughout the United States also report a similar trend of eliminations and decreases of task forces.

Without multi-jurisdictional task forces, officers will revert to working within their own stovepipes, arresting mere targets of opportunity instead of focusing on organizational targets that have a disproportionate impact on the problem. Police officers will return to working within their own teams rather than cooperating and using shared intelligence to identify wider drug trafficking investigations.

Since 9/11, we have understandably placed greater emphasis on the terrorist threat from abroad, and protecting our borders. But to save the perimeter and lose the heartland to international drug cartels, American street gangs, local meth cookers and neighborhood drug traffickers would be a hollow victory indeed.

Last year, a group of 15 organizations--including NNOAC, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs' Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Alliance of Drug Enforcement Agencies, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals--all came together to call for the Byrne/JAG program to be funded at the $1.1 billion level.

The 15 groups represented more than 456,000 law enforcement officers, drug court judges, treatment practitioners, and prosecutors from over 2,000 counties and more than 5,000 community prevention coalitions. And for the 110th Congress, funding Byrne/JAG at the $1.1 billion level remains a top law enforcement priority.

Passage of this bill will respond to such requests from law enforcement, and also send a clear message that any further efforts by this Administration to reduce or eliminate the Byrne/JAG program in the Fiscal Year 208 budget will be strongly resisted by this Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I believe we are in morning business; is that correct?

What is the length of time for each Senator?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the majority leader has asked if, as the new chairman of the Rules Committee, I would come down and briefly say a few words about the bill we will be placing on the floor tomorrow. That bill is S. 1. This bill has passed the Senate before by a vote of 90 to 8. It offers the opportunity for the Senate to come

together, in a bipartisan way, and pass lobbying reforms, some ethics reform, some earmarks reform, and take a real step together in an important way.

As we all know, the House has passed a set of rules, and so the conference is going to be an interesting one because the Senate will have its own bill. The House will have its own exclusive rules and hopefully will present some bill language from relevant committees in the House that we will be able to reconcile in the conference committee.

Tomorrow, with Senator Bennett as the ranking member, as well as Senators Lieberman and Collins, we will formally present this bill. I hope that the presentation will reflect our commitment to work together to see that the discussion is full, that we understand that there are differences of opinion within the Senate on some of the points, but that it is critically important that action be taken.

We all know what has happened this past year. We all know that the results of the election have indicated that corruption is an important concern of the electorate, some say the most important concern, even with Iraq, that was voted on in this election. So the voice of the people calling us to move ahead, pass legislation, and see that our House is clean and scrupulous is increasingly important. I believe we will measure up.

The base bill that will be on the floor tomorrow is identical to the bill that was passed last year. It came to the floor in the early part of the year and was then passed by the Senate. It was held up in the House over a difference of opinion on 527 reform. And from that point on, it was stymied and went nowhere.

It is also my understanding--and my staff has been a party to the discussions--that there will be a leadership amendment. That leadership amendment will be concurred in by the majority leader, the minority leader, the chair and ranking member of Rules and others. It will essentially toughen the bill that was presented last year. We will deal with a number of issues, including strengthening the earmark language.

Now, I want to make a couple of personal comments on earmarks. In my view, this is the most difficult part of the entire bill, to reconcile feelings, to be able to develop some form of a consensus. An earmark is an appropriation placed in the budget by Members of Congress. I believe earmarks should exist. We have big States, and I come from a big State of 38 million people. We pay far more in taxes than we get back in services. Therefore, to be able to place in the budget certain critical items that benefit California's infrastructure and California's programs is important.

I also strongly believe that my name should accompany the earmark. I have no problem letting anyone know what earmark I have suggested.

I strongly believe that--and this is where I think I probably differ from some of my colleagues--if an earmark is added in the dark of night, if the earmark is not voted on by a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, it should be subject to a 60-vote point of order. Right now, rule XXVIII, according to the Parliamentarian, does not apply to earmarks per se but out-of-scope matters only--for example, ANWR. So I think the discussion in the ensuing week and a half is going to be an interesting one.

Secondly, are earmarks just non-Federal additions, congressional additions to a budget, or do they also encompass funds that go to State entities or private entities? As we work on this issue, I say to the Members that I would very much like to know your views. I would like to work with every Member. It is my intention as the new chairman of the Rules Committee to work openly and, hopefully, in a bipartisan way not only with the ranking member but with other Republicans and Democrats on that committee. The first hearing we will have in the Rules Committee will be on the subject of the past election--specifically, the undervote in Sarasota, FL, on certain items on their ballot, e- voting, and what we might be able to do to assure people who vote that their vote is recorded accurately; that there are actually no switchovers; that there is no difference between how you press the button and how your vote is recorded; and that you can corroborate with a paper trail that, in fact, that is the way you voted.

I come to the Senate floor to make very brief opening remarks and signal my intention to work with the Rules Committee on this bill in a bipartisan way and, hopefully, to make as much progress as we can.

I have been an appropriator for 13 out of my 15 years in this body. I have served in different capacities, as we all have. We work our way up through the chairs in Appropriations. I think the time has come for earmarks, and for holds as well, to stop the anonymity, give them the full light of day; for Members who produce earmarks to be willing to defend them and that when earmarks are placed in the dark of night by a Member, they would be subject to a 60-vote point of order.

I will say one other thing about holds. A hold is something that a Member does to essentially indicate that they have a concern about a vote. It is difficult, from a parliamentary perspective, to take action because you may just want to hold a bill so that you have an opportunity to read it, which would just be 24 hours or so. Or you may have some mischief in your mind when you produce a hold. I have seen holds that were put on virtually everything that came out of a committee because one Member wanted to make a point. I have seen Members put holds on every bill another Member had to make a point. It seems to me that along with the era of the anonymous earmark, the era of the anonymous hold ought to be put to rest with a big sign that says ``rest in peace.''

This is a new day. I do agree that transparency and full disclosure act in the best interest of this body. I look forward to presenting the bill tomorrow, along with Ranking Member Bennett, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Collins, and to the ensuing 6 or 7 days of discussion and amendments.

I want to ask one other thing, and that is that when the bill comes to the floor, Members come down and file their amendments so that in addition to the leadership-proposed substitute, we will have knowledge of what is about to come to the floor.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Sessions in re-introducing the ``Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act.'' The Act would clarify the rule of law and procedures that should be applied when a criminal defendant, such as former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, dies after he has been duly convicted, but before his appeals are final.

This bill passed the Senate unanimously at the end of the 109th Congress, but unfortunately it was not taken up by the House. Except for minor, technical corrections, this new bill is the same as what the Senate passed in the last Congress, and I urge my colleagues to speedily pass this bill, as you did before, so that it can be enacted into law.

As I mentioned when I introduced this bill last fall, we have worked closely with the Department of Justice in crafting this legislation, and have used much of DOJ's suggested language. DOJ fully supports the principles contained in this bill, and has indicated that it supports fixing this problem now to ensure that, despite a defendant's death, hard-won convictions are preserved so that restitution remains available for the victims of crime.

This bill would establish that, if a defendant dies after being convicted of a federal offense, his conviction will not be vacated. Instead, the court will be directed to issue a statement that the defendant was convicted--either by a guilty plea or a verdict finding him guilty--but then died before his case or appeal was final.

It would codify the current rule that no further punishments can be imposed on a person who is convicted if they die before a sentence is imposed or they have an opportunity to appeal their conviction. It would clarify that, unlike punishment, other relief (such as restitution to the victims) that could have been sought against a convicted defendant can continue to be pursued and collected after the defendant's death. It would establish a process to ensure that after a person dies, a representative of his estate can challenge or appeal his conviction if they want, and can also secure a lawyer--either on their own or by having one appointed and, if the Government had filed a criminal forfeiture action--in which it had sought to reach the defendant's assets that were linked to his crimes--the Government would get an extra 2 years after the defendant's death to file a civil forfeiture lawsuit so that it could try to recover those same assets in a different, and traditionally-accepted manner.

The need for this legislation was vividly demonstrated on October 17, 2006, when U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, of the Southern District of Texas, wiped clean the criminal record of Enron founder Kenneth Lay, even after a jury and judge had unanimously found him guilty of 10 criminal charges, including securities fraud, wire fraud involving false and misleading statements, bank fraud and conspiracy.

The decision to dismiss Mr. Lay's conviction was not based on any error in the trial, suggestion of unfairness in the proceedings, or allegation of his innocence. Instead, it was simply based on the fact that Mr. Lay died before his conviction had been affirmed on appeal, under a common law rule known as ``abatement.''

In other words, the order essentially meant that Mr. Lay was ``convicted but not guilty''--``innocent by reason of his death.''

Judge Lake granted this dismissal even in the face of DOJ Enron Task Force filings, which noted how Mr. Lay's conviction ``provided the basis for the likely disgorgement of fraud proceeds totaling tens of millions of dollars.'' In other words, the dismissal meant that millions of dollars that the jury found was obtained by Mr. Lay illegally at the expense of former Enron employees and shareholders, would remain untouched in the Lay estate. These employees and shareholders will now find it much harder to lay claim to these ill- gotten gains held by Mr. Lay's estate, because they will be unable to point to his criminal conviction as proof of his wrongdoing.

I do not fault Judge Lake for issuing this order. He made it clear that he was simply following the binding precedent issued in 2004 by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in a case called United States v. Estate of Parsons.

But as I noted in a letter I wrote to Attorney General Gonzales on October 20, 2006, the Fifth Circuit's Parsons decision goes far beyond the traditional rule of law in this area. While the common-law doctrine of abatement has historically wiped out ``punishments'' following a criminal defendant's death, the Supreme Court has never held that it must also wipe out a victim's right to other forms of relief such as restitution, which simply compensate third parties who were injured by criminal misconduct.

As the six dissenters in Parsons noted, the majority's `` `finality rationale' is a completely novel judicial creation which has not been embraced or even suggested by . . . other courts.'' The Third and Fourth Circuits, for example, have expressly refused to take this position, and upheld a restitution order after a criminal defendant's death.

The Parsons decision was remarkable in several other respects, including the fact that (as the dissenters noted), its new rule of law was apparently inspired by a single law review article. That academic piece boldly claimed that a criminal defendant's right of appeal is ``evolving into a constitutional right,''

and suggested that a conviction untested by appellate review is unreliable and illegitimate. This notion runs contrary to the traditional rule applied in virtually every other context--where a jury's findings are typically respected under the law.

Of course a defendant is presumed innocent at the outset of his case. After a jury has deliberated and unanimously issued a formal finding of guilt, however, that presumption of innocence no longer stands.

The Parsons ``finality'' rationale even raises the possibility that a defendant who fully admitted his wrongdoing and pleaded guilty, but who then died while an appeal of his sentence was pending, could have his entire criminal conviction erased.

In fact, that has already occurred, in the 1994 case of United States v. Pogue, where the D.C. Circuit ordered the dismissal of a conviction of a defendant whose appeal was pending--even though the docketing statement had said that the defendant intended to challenge only his sentence, and not his underlying conviction.

Following Judge Lake's decision, I sent a letter to the Attorney General, asking him to appeal the order and continue the fight for Enron victims. Unfortunately, the Justice Department decided in November to withdraw its appeal, leaving it up to the victims themselves to pursue any further relief.

I am very disappointed in this decision. These victims have had their livelihoods and retirement stripped from them, and they deserved a Justice Department that was willing to fight vigorously to protect their interests.

Enron's collapse in 2001 wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value, and more than $2 billion in pension plans. When America's seventh largest company crumbled into bankruptcy after its accounting tricks could no longer hide its billions in debt, countless former Enron employees and shareholders lost their entire life savings after investing in Enron's 401(k) plan.

Many of these Enron victims have been following closely the years of preparation by the Enron Task Force, and the four-month jury trial and separate one-week bench trial, hoping to finally recover some restitution in this criminal case. And despite Mr. Lay's vigorous efforts to avoid being held accountable for his actions, a conviction was finally secured.

Yet now these people have essentially been victimized again. They will be forced to start all over in their efforts to get back some portion of the pension funds on which they expected to subsist, and the other hard-earned assets that will remain beyond their reach, despite the unanimous, hard-fought verdicts finding Mr. Lay guilty of all ten counts with which he had been charged.

I believe in situations like this, leaving the victims without this recourse is an unacceptable outcome. That is why I am introducing this bill to prevent further injustices like this from ever happening again.

While I have no desire for our Government to punish a criminal defendant who dies, the calculation should be different when we are determining how to make up for harm suffered by other innocent victims.

This legislation offers a fair solution and orderly process in the event that a criminal defendant dies prior to his final appeal.

The time has come for Congress to end this injustice--hopefully, by acting quickly enough to assist these Enron victims, but in any event in a way that will solve the problems that the Lay dismissal so starkly illustrated.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to quickly pass this bill, as you did in the 109th Congress, so that we can enact it into law in the 110th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hutchison, Feingold, Leahy, Snowe, Kennedy and Durbin in reintroducing the ``Family Abduction Prevention Act,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by a family member each year.

We introduced this legislation last Congress, and it passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but unfortunately, the bill was never taken up by the House. This is important and needed legislation.

Family abductions are the most common form of abduction, yet they receive little attention, and law enforcement agencies too often don't treat them as the serious crimes that they are--too often dismissing the seriousness of these cases as family disputes.

The Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2007 would provide grants to States for the costs associated with family abduction prevention. Specifically, it would assist States with costs associated with the extradition of individuals suspected of committing the crime of family abduction, costs borne by State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate cases of missing children, training for local and State law enforcement agencies in responding to family abductions, outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the dangers of family abductions, and assistance to public schools to help with costs associated with ``flagging'' school records.

Each year, over 200,000 children--78 percent of all abductions in the United States--are kidnapped by a family member, usually a non- custodial parent.

More than half of the abducting parents have a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, or a criminal record.

Unfortunately, many State and local law enforcement agencies frequently treat these abductions as personal, family disputes. Approximately 70 percent of law enforcement agencies lack written guidelines on responding to family abduction and many are not informed about the Federal laws available to help in the search and recovery of an abducted child.

Too often law enforcement assumes that a child is not in grave danger if the abductor is a family member. Unfortunately, this is not always true, and this assumption can endanger a child's life. Research has shown that the most common motive in family abduction cases is revenge against the other parent--not love for the child.

The effects of family abduction on children are often traumatic. Abducted children suffer from severe separation anxiety. To break emotional ties with the left-behind parent, some abductors will coach a child into falsely disclosing abuse by the other parent to perpetuate their control during or after the abduction. And in many cases, the child is told that the other parent is dead or did not really love them.

For example, on Takeroot.org, a website devoted to the victims of family abductions, a young lady named Kelly told the story of how her parents were going through a bitter divorce and custody battle when she was nine, and her brother was six. Her dad picked them up for a regular visit, but then just kept on driving.

Kelly says, ``If I close my eyes, I can still see my mother waving goodbye as we watched her from the rear window of our father's truck. . . . Little did we know that it would be close to a year before we would see her again.''

Days later, Kelly started asking her father why they were continuing to drive--and why they were sleeping in the truck. After a while, her father finally broke his silence and screamed at her that her mother had given him the children because she didn't love them and that they would just have to learn to deal with it.

For the next eleven months, they lived like fugitives on the run, often dirty and hungry, ``with very little money and even less love,'' according to Kelly. ``We left in the middle of the night, never saying goodbye to friends we may have made or people we met. I still see those people in my mind's eye. I miss them. . . . Mostly, I miss the child I was, the child I lost.''

The harm caused by these abductions cannot easily be put into words. In many family abduction cases, children are given new identities at an age when they are still developing a sense of who they are. In extreme cases, the child's gender is masked to further avoid detection.

Abducting parents also often deprive their children of education and much-needed medical attention to avoid the risk of being tracked via school or medical records.

As the child adapts to a fugitive's lifestyle, deception becomes an integral part of their life. The child is taught to fear those that one would normally trust, such as police, doctors, teachers and counselors. Even after recovery, the child often has a difficult time growing into adulthood.

In some cases, the abducting parent leaves the child with strangers, or locations where their health, safety, and other basic needs may be extremely compromised.

For example, in Lafayette, CA, two girls abducted by their mother ended up under the control of a convicted child molester. When Kelli Nunez absconded with her daughters, 6-year-old Anna and 4-year-old Emily, in violation of court custody orders, she drove her daughters cross-country, and then returned by plane to San Francisco, where she handed the children to someone holding a coded sign at the airport.

The person holding the sign belonged to a helpful-sounding organization called the California Family Law Center--but the organization was actually led by Florencio Maning, a convicted child molester. For six months, Maning orchestrated the concealment of the Nunez girls with help from other people.

Luckily, police were able to track down the girls, and they were successfully reunited with their father. That success may have been due to the fact that California has been the Nation's leader in fighting family abduction.

In my State, we have a system that places the responsibility for the investigation and resolution of family abduction cases with the County District Attorney's Office. Each California County District Attorney's Office has an investigative unit that is focused on family abduction cases. These investigators only handle family abduction cases and become experts in the process.

However, most States lack the training and resources to effectively recover children who are kidnapped by a family member. According to a study conducted by Plass, Finkelhor and Hotaling, 62 percent of parents surveyed said they were ``somewhat'' or ``very'' dissatisfied with police handling of their family abduction cases.

The ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2007'' would be an important first step in addressing this serious issue.

I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation, just as you did in the 109th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will bring to a close 18 years of litigation between the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Friant Water Users Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior. It is identical to the bill that we introduced in the waning days of the 109th Congress.

This historic bill will enact a settlement that restores California's second longest river, the San Joaquin, while maintaining a stable water supply for the farmers who have made the Valley the richest agricultural area in the world.

Without this consensus resolution to a long-running western water battle the parties will continue the fight, resulting in a court imposed settlement. To my knowledge, every farmer and every environmentalist who has considered the possibility of continued litigation believes that an outcome imposed by a judge is likely to be worse for everyone on all counts: more costly, riskier for the farmers, and less beneficial for the environment.

The Settlement provides a framework that the affected interests can accept. As a result, this legislation has the strong support of the Bush Administration, the Schwarzenegger Administration, the environmental and fishing communities and numerous California farmers and water districts, including all 22 Friant water districts that have been part of the litigation.

In announcing the signing of this San Joaquin River settlement in September, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior praised it as a ``monumental agreement.'' And when the Federal Court then approved the Settlement in late October, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne further praised Settlement for launching ``one of the largest environmental restoration projects in California's history.'' The Secretary further observed that, ``This Settlement closes a long chapter of conflict and uncertainty in California's San Joaquin Valley . . . and open[s] a new chapter of environmental restoration and water supply certainty for the farmers and their communities.''

I share the Secretary's strong support for this balanced and historic agreement, and it is my honor to join with Senator Boxer and a bipartisan group of California House Members in introducing legislation to approve and authorize this Settlement.

The legislation indicates how the settlement forged by the parties is going to be implemented. It involves the Departments of the Interior and Commerce, and essentially gives the Secretary of the Interior the additional authority to: take the actions to restore the San Joaquin River; reintroduce the California Central Valley Spring Run Chinook Salmon; minimize water supply impacts on Friant water districts; and avoid reductions in water supply for third-party water contractors.

One of the major benefits of this settlement is the restoration of a long-lost salmon fishery. The return of one of California's most important salmon runs will create significant benefits for local communities in the San Joaquin Valley, helping to restore a beleaguered fishing industry while improving recreation and quality of life.

The legislation provides for improvements to the San Joaquin river channel to allow salmon restoration to begin in 2014. Beginning in that year, the river would see an annual flow regime mandated by the Settlement, with pulses of additional water in the spring and greater flows available in wetter years. There is flexibility to add or subtract up to 10 percent from the annual flows, as the best science dictates.

A visitor to the revitalized river channel in a decade will find an entirely different place providing recreation for residents of small towns like Mendota, and a refuge for residents of larger cities like Fresno.

The legislation I am introducing today includes provisions to benefit the farmers of the San Joaquin Valley as well as the salmon. In wet years, Friant contractors can purchase surplus flows at $10 per acre- foot for use in dry years, far less than the approximately $35 per acre-foot that they would otherwise pay for this water.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to recirculate new restoration flows from the Delta via the California aqueduct and the Cross-Valley Canal to provide additional supply for Friant.

Today's legislation also includes substantial protections for other water districts in California who were not party to the original settlement negotiations. These other water contractors will be able to avoid all but the smallest water impacts as a result of the settlement, except on a voluntary basis.

In addition, the restoration of flows for over 150 miles below Friant Dam, and reconnecting the upper River to the critical San Joaquin- Sacramento Delta, will be a welcome change for the more than 22 million Californians who rely on that crucial source for their drinking water.

Finally, restoring the San Joaquin as a living salmon river may ultimately help struggling fishing communities on California's North Coast--and even into Southern Oregon. The restoration of the San Joaquin and the government's commitment to reintroduce and rebuild historic salmon populations provide a rare bright spot for these communities.

In addition to congratulating the parties for making a settlement that will enable the long-sought restoration of the San Joaquin River, I am mindful of and remain committed to progress in implementing and funding the December 19, 2000, Trinity River restoration record of decision and the Hoopa Valley Tribe's co-management of the decision's important goal of restoring the fishery resources that the United States holds in trust for the Tribe.

Support of this agreement is almost as far reaching as its benefits. This historic agreement would not have been possible without the participation of a remarkably broad group of agencies, stakeholders and legislators, reaching far beyond the settling parties. The Department of the Interior, the State of California, the Friant Water Users Authority, the Natural Resources Defense Council on behalf of 13 other environmental organizations and countless other stakeholders came together and spent countless hours with legislators in Washington to ensure that we found a solution that the large majority of those affected could support.

In November of last year, California voters showed their support by approving Propositions 84 and 1E that will help pay for the Settlement by committing at least $100 million and likely $200 million or more toward the restoration costs. Indeed, this Legislation includes a diverse mix of approximately $200 million in direct Water User payments, new State payments, $240 million in dedicated Friant Central Valley Project capital repayments, and future Federal appropriations limited to $250 million. This mix of funding sources is intended to ensure that the river restoration program will be sustainable over time and truly a joint effort of Federal, state and local agencies.

I would like to emphasize that the Federal funding in the bill is for implementation of both the Restoration Goal to reestablish a salmon fishery in the river, and the Water Management Goal to avoid or minimize water supply losses supplied by Friant Water Districts. It is critical to recognize that these efforts are of equal importance.

At the end of the day, I believe that this agreement is something that we can all feel very proud of, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to move quickly to approve this legislation and provide the Administration the authorization it needs to fully carry out its

legal obligations and the extensive restoration opportunities under the settlement.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Sessions in re-introducing the ``Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act.'' The Act would clarify the rule of law and procedures that should be applied when a criminal defendant, such as former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, dies after he has been duly convicted, but before his appeals are final.

This bill passed the Senate unanimously at the end of the 109th Congress, but unfortunately it was not taken up by the House. Except for minor, technical corrections, this new bill is the same as what the Senate passed in the last Congress, and I urge my colleagues to speedily pass this bill, as you did before, so that it can be enacted into law.

As I mentioned when I introduced this bill last fall, we have worked closely with the Department of Justice in crafting this legislation, and have used much of DOJ's suggested language. DOJ fully supports the principles contained in this bill, and has indicated that it supports fixing this problem now to ensure that, despite a defendant's death, hard-won convictions are preserved so that restitution remains available for the victims of crime.

This bill would establish that, if a defendant dies after being convicted of a federal offense, his conviction will not be vacated. Instead, the court will be directed to issue a statement that the defendant was convicted--either by a guilty plea or a verdict finding him guilty--but then died before his case or appeal was final.

It would codify the current rule that no further punishments can be imposed on a person who is convicted if they die before a sentence is imposed or they have an opportunity to appeal their conviction. It would clarify that, unlike punishment, other relief (such as restitution to the victims) that could have been sought against a convicted defendant can continue to be pursued and collected after the defendant's death. It would establish a process to ensure that after a person dies, a representative of his estate can challenge or appeal his conviction if they want, and can also secure a lawyer--either on their own or by having one appointed and, if the Government had filed a criminal forfeiture action--in which it had sought to reach the defendant's assets that were linked to his crimes--the Government would get an extra 2 years after the defendant's death to file a civil forfeiture lawsuit so that it could try to recover those same assets in a different, and traditionally-accepted manner.

The need for this legislation was vividly demonstrated on October 17, 2006, when U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, of the Southern District of Texas, wiped clean the criminal record of Enron founder Kenneth Lay, even after a jury and judge had unanimously found him guilty of 10 criminal charges, including securities fraud, wire fraud involving false and misleading statements, bank fraud and conspiracy.

The decision to dismiss Mr. Lay's conviction was not based on any error in the trial, suggestion of unfairness in the proceedings, or allegation of his innocence. Instead, it was simply based on the fact that Mr. Lay died before his conviction had been affirmed on appeal, under a common law rule known as ``abatement.''

In other words, the order essentially meant that Mr. Lay was ``convicted but not guilty''--``innocent by reason of his death.''

Judge Lake granted this dismissal even in the face of DOJ Enron Task Force filings, which noted how Mr. Lay's conviction ``provided the basis for the likely disgorgement of fraud proceeds totaling tens of millions of dollars.'' In other words, the dismissal meant that millions of dollars that the jury found was obtained by Mr. Lay illegally at the expense of former Enron employees and shareholders, would remain untouched in the Lay estate. These employees and shareholders will now find it much harder to lay claim to these ill- gotten gains held by Mr. Lay's estate, because they will be unable to point to his criminal conviction as proof of his wrongdoing.

I do not fault Judge Lake for issuing this order. He made it clear that he was simply following the binding precedent issued in 2004 by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in a case called United States v. Estate of Parsons.

But as I noted in a letter I wrote to Attorney General Gonzales on October 20, 2006, the Fifth Circuit's Parsons decision goes far beyond the traditional rule of law in this area. While the common-law doctrine of abatement has historically wiped out ``punishments'' following a criminal defendant's death, the Supreme Court has never held that it must also wipe out a victim's right to other forms of relief such as restitution, which simply compensate third parties who were injured by criminal misconduct.

As the six dissenters in Parsons noted, the majority's `` `finality rationale' is a completely novel judicial creation which has not been embraced or even suggested by . . . other courts.'' The Third and Fourth Circuits, for example, have expressly refused to take this position, and upheld a restitution order after a criminal defendant's death.

The Parsons decision was remarkable in several other respects, including the fact that (as the dissenters noted), its new rule of law was apparently inspired by a single law review article. That academic piece boldly claimed that a criminal defendant's right of appeal is ``evolving into a constitutional right,''

and suggested that a conviction untested by appellate review is unreliable and illegitimate. This notion runs contrary to the traditional rule applied in virtually every other context--where a jury's findings are typically respected under the law.

Of course a defendant is presumed innocent at the outset of his case. After a jury has deliberated and unanimously issued a formal finding of guilt, however, that presumption of innocence no longer stands.

The Parsons ``finality'' rationale even raises the possibility that a defendant who fully admitted his wrongdoing and pleaded guilty, but who then died while an appeal of his sentence was pending, could have his entire criminal conviction erased.

In fact, that has already occurred, in the 1994 case of United States v. Pogue, where the D.C. Circuit ordered the dismissal of a conviction of a defendant whose appeal was pending--even though the docketing statement had said that the defendant intended to challenge only his sentence, and not his underlying conviction.

Following Judge Lake's decision, I sent a letter to the Attorney General, asking him to appeal the order and continue the fight for Enron victims. Unfortunately, the Justice Department decided in November to withdraw its appeal, leaving it up to the victims themselves to pursue any further relief.

I am very disappointed in this decision. These victims have had their livelihoods and retirement stripped from them, and they deserved a Justice Department that was willing to fight vigorously to protect their interests.

Enron's collapse in 2001 wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value, and more than $2 billion in pension plans. When America's seventh largest company crumbled into bankruptcy after its accounting tricks could no longer hide its billions in debt, countless former Enron employees and shareholders lost their entire life savings after investing in Enron's 401(k) plan.

Many of these Enron victims have been following closely the years of preparation by the Enron Task Force, and the four-month jury trial and separate one-week bench trial, hoping to finally recover some restitution in this criminal case. And despite Mr. Lay's vigorous efforts to avoid being held accountable for his actions, a conviction was finally secured.

Yet now these people have essentially been victimized again. They will be forced to start all over in their efforts to get back some portion of the pension funds on which they expected to subsist, and the other hard-earned assets that will remain beyond their reach, despite the unanimous, hard-fought verdicts finding Mr. Lay guilty of all ten counts with which he had been charged.

I believe in situations like this, leaving the victims without this recourse is an unacceptable outcome. That is why I am introducing this bill to prevent further injustices like this from ever happening again.

While I have no desire for our Government to punish a criminal defendant who dies, the calculation should be different when we are determining how to make up for harm suffered by other innocent victims.

This legislation offers a fair solution and orderly process in the event that a criminal defendant dies prior to his final appeal.

The time has come for Congress to end this injustice--hopefully, by acting quickly enough to assist these Enron victims, but in any event in a way that will solve the problems that the Lay dismissal so starkly illustrated.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to quickly pass this bill, as you did in the 109th Congress, so that we can enact it into law in the 110th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hutchison, Feingold, Leahy, Snowe, Kennedy and Durbin in reintroducing the ``Family Abduction Prevention Act,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by a family member each year.

We introduced this legislation last Congress, and it passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but unfortunately, the bill was never taken up by the House. This is important and needed legislation.

Family abductions are the most common form of abduction, yet they receive little attention, and law enforcement agencies too often don't treat them as the serious crimes that they are--too often dismissing the seriousness of these cases as family disputes.

The Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2007 would provide grants to States for the costs associated with family abduction prevention. Specifically, it would assist States with costs associated with the extradition of individuals suspected of committing the crime of family abduction, costs borne by State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate cases of missing children, training for local and State law enforcement agencies in responding to family abductions, outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the dangers of family abductions, and assistance to public schools to help with costs associated with ``flagging'' school records.

Each year, over 200,000 children--78 percent of all abductions in the United States--are kidnapped by a family member, usually a non- custodial parent.

More than half of the abducting parents have a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, or a criminal record.

Unfortunately, many State and local law enforcement agencies frequently treat these abductions as personal, family disputes. Approximately 70 percent of law enforcement agencies lack written guidelines on responding to family abduction and many are not informed about the Federal laws available to help in the search and recovery of an abducted child.

Too often law enforcement assumes that a child is not in grave danger if the abductor is a family member. Unfortunately, this is not always true, and this assumption can endanger a child's life. Research has shown that the most common motive in family abduction cases is revenge against the other parent--not love for the child.

The effects of family abduction on children are often traumatic. Abducted children suffer from severe separation anxiety. To break emotional ties with the left-behind parent, some abductors will coach a child into falsely disclosing abuse by the other parent to perpetuate their control during or after the abduction. And in many cases, the child is told that the other parent is dead or did not really love them.

For example, on Takeroot.org, a website devoted to the victims of family abductions, a young lady named Kelly told the story of how her parents were going through a bitter divorce and custody battle when she was nine, and her brother was six. Her dad picked them up for a regular visit, but then just kept on driving.

Kelly says, ``If I close my eyes, I can still see my mother waving goodbye as we watched her from the rear window of our father's truck. . . . Little did we know that it would be close to a year before we would see her again.''

Days later, Kelly started asking her father why they were continuing to drive--and why they were sleeping in the truck. After a while, her father finally broke his silence and screamed at her that her mother had given him the children because she didn't love them and that they would just have to learn to deal with it.

For the next eleven months, they lived like fugitives on the run, often dirty and hungry, ``with very little money and even less love,'' according to Kelly. ``We left in the middle of the night, never saying goodbye to friends we may have made or people we met. I still see those people in my mind's eye. I miss them. . . . Mostly, I miss the child I was, the child I lost.''

The harm caused by these abductions cannot easily be put into words. In many family abduction cases, children are given new identities at an age when they are still developing a sense of who they are. In extreme cases, the child's gender is masked to further avoid detection.

Abducting parents also often deprive their children of education and much-needed medical attention to avoid the risk of being tracked via school or medical records.

As the child adapts to a fugitive's lifestyle, deception becomes an integral part of their life. The child is taught to fear those that one would normally trust, such as police, doctors, teachers and counselors. Even after recovery, the child often has a difficult time growing into adulthood.

In some cases, the abducting parent leaves the child with strangers, or locations where their health, safety, and other basic needs may be extremely compromised.

For example, in Lafayette, CA, two girls abducted by their mother ended up under the control of a convicted child molester. When Kelli Nunez absconded with her daughters, 6-year-old Anna and 4-year-old Emily, in violation of court custody orders, she drove her daughters cross-country, and then returned by plane to San Francisco, where she handed the children to someone holding a coded sign at the airport.

The person holding the sign belonged to a helpful-sounding organization called the California Family Law Center--but the organization was actually led by Florencio Maning, a convicted child molester. For six months, Maning orchestrated the concealment of the Nunez girls with help from other people.

Luckily, police were able to track down the girls, and they were successfully reunited with their father. That success may have been due to the fact that California has been the Nation's leader in fighting family abduction.

In my State, we have a system that places the responsibility for the investigation and resolution of family abduction cases with the County District Attorney's Office. Each California County District Attorney's Office has an investigative unit that is focused on family abduction cases. These investigators only handle family abduction cases and become experts in the process.

However, most States lack the training and resources to effectively recover children who are kidnapped by a family member. According to a study conducted by Plass, Finkelhor and Hotaling, 62 percent of parents surveyed said they were ``somewhat'' or ``very'' dissatisfied with police handling of their family abduction cases.

The ``Family Abduction Prevention Act of 2007'' would be an important first step in addressing this serious issue.

I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation, just as you did in the 109th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the assurances my friend and colleague from Oregon and I have received from U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, Susan Schwab and Assistant Secretary of Commerce David Spooner about the import monitoring program on Vietnamese textiles and apparel. In response to concerns raised by Senator Dole and Senator Graham about the impact of Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, for Vietnam, Ambassador Schwab and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez wrote a letter stating their intention to monitor U.S. textile and apparel imports from Vietnam and self-initiate antidumping investigations if the normal elements of an antidumping case can be demonstrated. The Commerce Department will conduct a review every 6 months, and the program will last until the end of this administration. I ask the Senator from Oregon if he is aware of the concerns that have been raised about this program.

I agree with the Senator from Oregon's description of our concerns and the assurances we are seeking from the administration. This matter was first brought to my attention by key retail constituents in my State including companies like Gap, Inc., Liz Claiborne, and Limited Brands. Retailers have expressed their concern that the import monitoring program would create too much unpredictability and force companies to modify their sourcing strategies and accept the risk of and potential additional cost of antidumping investigations and antidumping duties. They share the concern expressed by the Senator from Oregon that the retail industry was not consulted before the administration committed to setting up the program. I was happy to join the Senator from Oregon on the letter to USTR and Commerce, and I had hoped that we would receive a response before a vote on PNTR on the Senate floor. Is it the Senator's understanding that we will not receive a response to our concerns before the vote?

The Senator from Oregon is correct. We had a robust and substantive discussion. Ambassador Schwab and Assistant Secretary Spooner assured us that the import monitoring process will be fully consistent with U.S. law and applicable WTO rules. No new precedent would be set. In addition, they also agreed that the import monitoring process should not harm U.S.-Vietnam textile and apparel trade, and they assured us that no additional reporting requirements or other burdens would be placed on importers of textiles and apparel from Vietnam. This means that it is their intention that monitoring will be based upon information already collected in the normal customs entry process or otherwise available to the Government. Finally, they assured us that the views of our constituents and all Members of Congress would be taken into account as the process is developed. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's commitment and hard work on this issue. With the assurances from Ambassador Schwab and Assistant Secretary Spooner, I will support legislation granting permanent normal trade relations status to Vietnam. Would the Senator from Oregon agree that we will continue to follow this process closely to ensure that USTR and Commerce live up to their commitments and implement this program in a manner that is fully consistent with U.S. law and our WTO obligations?