Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will give tangible relief to the families of the five federal firefighters killed in the devastating Esperanza fire in southern California this October.

The Esperanza fire tragically claimed lives, homes and other buildings, while burning more than 40,000 acres. No one has felt the pain of this heartbreaking disaster more than the families of Mark ``Lotzie'' Loutzenhiser, Jess McLean, Jason McKay, Daniel Hoover- Najera, and Pablo Cerda.

These five men served honorably while exhibiting the utmost bravery in the name of helping others. They gave the ultimate sacrifice, and so have their families, who must now go on without a father or a son, a brother or a husband.

Now, in an outpouring of generosity and compassion, a United Way chapter in Riverside County, together with the surrounding community has raised more than $1 million to help the families of our fallen heroes as they move forward from this tragedy.

This serves as a testament to what these men meant to the community, the State of California and the Nation.

Unfortunately, in what seems to be a cruel twist, IRS rules do not allow this generosity to be passed on to the families of these brave firefighters.

Tax-exempt charitable organizations are prohibited from raising money for small, targeted, groups, such as the families of the fallen firefighters. In fact, if this memorial fund is passed on to the families, it could endanger the tax-exempt status of the Central County United Way and other charitable organizations trying to help these families in their hour of need.

In the wake of this disaster, our Government should be providing assistance to these families, not increasing their burden.

This much-needed legislation provides exemptions to allow this moving gesture to be realized. The United Way will preserve their tax exempt status, those who made these donations will receive the tax deductions they expected, and most importantly the families of the five fallen firefighters can receive individual donations, penalty free.

This legislation encourages the kind of generosity and kindness that we should all commend, not discourage.

We came together to pass similar legislation in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy and we should do so again today.

While this simple measure only makes a minor tax code clarification, the impact of this legislation will be profound for the families of these fallen heroes.

Let us not forget the heroism of these men and the sacrifice of their families. The time to act is now, so that these funds raised will not be withheld during the upcoming holiday season, when this relief is most needed.

I urge my colleagues to join me in doing what is right to help the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will give tangible relief to the families of the five federal firefighters killed in the devastating Esperanza fire in southern California this October.

The Esperanza fire tragically claimed lives, homes and other buildings, while burning more than 40,000 acres. No one has felt the pain of this heartbreaking disaster more than the families of Mark ``Lotzie'' Loutzenhiser, Jess McLean, Jason McKay, Daniel Hoover- Najera, and Pablo Cerda.

These five men served honorably while exhibiting the utmost bravery in the name of helping others. They gave the ultimate sacrifice, and so have their families, who must now go on without a father or a son, a brother or a husband.

Now, in an outpouring of generosity and compassion, a United Way chapter in Riverside County, together with the surrounding community has raised more than $1 million to help the families of our fallen heroes as they move forward from this tragedy.

This serves as a testament to what these men meant to the community, the State of California and the Nation.

Unfortunately, in what seems to be a cruel twist, IRS rules do not allow this generosity to be passed on to the families of these brave firefighters.

Tax-exempt charitable organizations are prohibited from raising money for small, targeted, groups, such as the families of the fallen firefighters. In fact, if this memorial fund is passed on to the families, it could endanger the tax-exempt status of the Central County United Way and other charitable organizations trying to help these families in their hour of need.

In the wake of this disaster, our Government should be providing assistance to these families, not increasing their burden.

This much-needed legislation provides exemptions to allow this moving gesture to be realized. The United Way will preserve their tax exempt status, those who made these donations will receive the tax deductions they expected, and most importantly the families of the five fallen firefighters can receive individual donations, penalty free.

This legislation encourages the kind of generosity and kindness that we should all commend, not discourage.

We came together to pass similar legislation in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy and we should do so again today.

While this simple measure only makes a minor tax code clarification, the impact of this legislation will be profound for the families of these fallen heroes.

Let us not forget the heroism of these men and the sacrifice of their families. The time to act is now, so that these funds raised will not be withheld during the upcoming holiday season, when this relief is most needed.

I urge my colleagues to join me in doing what is right to help the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Bill be printed in the Record.

That is correct.

May I proceed, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. I also indicate how much I agree with the Senator.

Before I proceed, I note that Senator Murray is in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent she be given 10 minutes directly following my remarks.

Mr. President, Senator Craig rightly stated that management choices are being made right now. That, in fact, is true. We are seeing billions of dollars of an agricultural industry effectively being destroyed. Some of it is competition from abroad, but much of it is the fact that growers and farmers have a 20-percent--it is estimated--labor shortage to plant, to harvest, to prune. There is tremendous uncertainty, I can tell you for a fact, in the largest State in the Union, and the largest agricultural State. Farmers do not believe they can get workers to harvest their crops, ergo they are not planting these crops.

Senator Craig and I came to the Senate before. We have written a joint letter to the leader. We have asked, please, because comprehensive immigration reform tends to be stalled, at least pass AgJOBS. An industry depends on it.

We have worked out AgJOBS. It has passed the Senate as part of the immigration bill. Just take out the part that is AgJOBS and pass it. It is a 5-year pilot. It involves the ability of the agricultural industry of our country to get labor, both through H-2A reform, which is contained, and through a 5-year pilot to try to secure a workforce for agriculture.

While I was in California, I had the opportunity to meet with growers and farmers. The cry for labor reform has only grown louder. What I will do is talk a little bit about the micro impact and then the macro impact.

California olive farmers delivered only about 50,000 tons of olives this year. That is down from 142,000 tons last year. So only one-third of the crop could be harvested this year because of a lack of labor. Farmers knew their crops were going to be light because of weather troubles. But even with the smaller crop to harvest, farmers had trouble hiring enough workers to work in their groves.

In Stanislaus County, a farmer by the name of Kevin Chiesa he is a grower and is the president of the Stanislaus Farm Bureau--reported that they simply pulled their fig and peach trees out of the ground because they did not have enough workers to harvest the ripe fruit. Mr. President, 350 acres were pulled on his farm, leading to a net dollar loss of $200,000 and a gross loss of $750,000.

Now, that may not seem like much to some, but it sure is a lot to a farmer

who depends on this money to pay his bank loans and to support his family and pay his mortgage.

In San Bernardino County, Richard Miller of Murai Farms saw his small farm of 130 acres struggle because of a lack of labor. He reported they experienced substantial loss in their strawberry crop, resulting in a half a million dollars in losses already this year. Mr. Miller has been farming since 1962, but the difficulties he has experienced have recently caused him to think about giving up his farm and leaving the profession for good.

Over and over again, I have heard that growers need an immediate fix. They do not know what to plant in the upcoming spring season because they do not know whether they will have the workers necessary to harvest the crops.

I will say that my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, and I are in sync on this issue. She also has talked to growers and farmers. She also knows the problem. She also has been a strong supporter of the AgJOBS program. So in making my remarks today, I want to be certain that this body knows I am also speaking for my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer.

I have brought to the floor today a graphic illustration of one of our pear growers. Her name is Toni Scully. I have met Toni Scully. I met with her in California and she told me about the problems her family had experienced. Shown in this picture is Toni Scully in her pear orchard. Her family lost 25 percent of their bumper crop this year because they did not have sufficient labor to harvest the pears. As shown in the picture, here are the pears all over the ground. They are all going to be either plowed under or thrown in the garbage. Here is a woman who will have lost essentially everything this year.

Now, other growers tell me they are afraid for the future. They are afraid to plant crops that will later be left to rot in the fields. So some growers are experimenting with moving their farms to Mexico. Last week, the New York Times ran an article that pointed out how much imported produce is now rising above exported produce. And one of the big problems is the produce produced at home is not assured; therefore, more produce is coming in from outside.

This is so shortsighted because we are throwing American families into jeopardy. Farming families cannot support themselves if they cannot produce their crops.

The Grape and Tree League of California--now, this is a big trade organization representing what is a huge grape and fruit tree crop group--they estimate that my State alone--Senator Boxer's and my State--has suffered approximately $75 million in tree fruit and grape loss alone. That is a loss of $75 million.

The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that if this labor shortage continues, California agricultural production loss could be as high as $3 billion each year in the short term and as high as $4.1 billion in the long term. This is decimating. California agricultural income loss is projected to reach $2.8 billion each year in the long term.

The problem is not just in California. Dairy farmers in Vermont, citrus growers in Florida, others throughout the country, have complained about the labor shortage and the uncertainty it creates for the future.

The Farm Credit Associations of New York estimate that if the labor shortage continues there, New York State will lose $195 million in value of agricultural production and over 200,000 acres in production over the next 24 months.

The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that if agriculture loses its migrant labor force, the national production loss in fruits and vegetables will be between $5 billion and $9 billion a year. This is not my estimate. This is the American Farm Bureau's estimate. They also say that over the long term, the annual production loss would increase to $6.5 billion to $12 billion each year.

These losses are not just limited to growers. The impact is felt throughout the economy. For every job lost on family farms and ranches, the country loses three to four jobs in related sectors equipment, inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending, insurance--they are all supported by having agricultural production here in this country.

Low-producing farms mean a lowered local tax base as farms no longer generate income and create jobs.

Ultimately, the current farm labor situation is making Americans more dependent on foreign food. Instead of stocking produce grown and harvested in our country, America's grocers are increasingly filling their shelves with foreign-grown produce.

For decades, the fiercely independent fruit and vegetable growers of California, Florida, and other States, traditionally have shunned Federal subsidies. Now, they are now buckling under the pressure and asking us for Federal subsidies.

In just one example, because of labor shortages, U.S. avocado farmers may miss the January market window and lose out to Mexican avocado farmers who will be allowed to import into California in 2007. This will wipe out our local avocado crop. The fact that they cannot get the labor they need to harvest the fruits and vegetables only weakens our whole American agricultural industry.

Now, the reason for the shortage is simple. There is no readily available pool of excess labor to replace the 500,000 foreign migrant workers we have depended on for years. The work is hard. It is stooped. It is manual. The hours are long. To make a living, the laborer must travel around the region, from site to site, working for more than one employer, to coincide with the crop harvesting calendar. The problem is, we do not have enough American workers who are willing to do this job.

This week, Senator Craig and I received a letter signed by over 375 agricultural organizations and industry leaders from all over the country urging agricultural reform this year. As they point out, this is not a partisan issue. Every area of the country is affected.

In November, I received a letter signed by 147 growers' organizations and individual farmers. They point out in their letter that they cannot wait another year, that our State's pear growers had an exceptional crop, the best-looking crop in over 40 years, yet they suffered major losses. They point out:

While the pear losses were the most dramatic among the

commodities, other producers suffered as well from delayed

harvests, degraded quality and deferred cultural practices.

These crises are a big deal. Farm worker crews in my State during harvest were 60 percent of normal--60 percent of normal. What they say is:

Pending regulatory changes issued by the Department of

Homeland Security propose to turn Social Security

Administration's mismatch letters into immigration compliance

documents. The proposal would allow DHS to prosecute and

penalize employers across this country who do not terminate

employees who cannot verify their status.

So, Mr. President, you see the problem. The farmers are going to be prosecuted if they hire someone who is not legal to harvest their crops. And they cannot find legal people to harvest their crops. That is the dilemma.

Further quoting the letter:

Even though today's employers follow current SSA

requirements regarding mismatch letters, they would be in

violation of the Department of Homeland Security proposal. If

finalized, the DHS proposal will aggravate the current labor

shortage problem in agriculture.

Bottom line, we cannot continue the way we are going. That is why Senator Craig and I have come to the floor. He has worked on this bill for 7 years. I finally got involved and we made some agreed-upon changes. I was able to introduce it in the Judiciary Committee as part of the immigration bill with these changes. We were able to address H- 2A reform--and I will go into that in a minute--and it passed the Senate. And, as I say, we believe we have in fact 60 votes in this House.

The letter I spoke about and quoted from is signed by the Allied Grape Growers; California Association of Nurseries & Garden Centers; California Association of Wheat Growers; California Association of Winegrape Growers; California Bean Shippers Association; California Citrus Mutual; California Cotton Ginners & Growers Associations; California Egg Industry Association; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Fig Advisory Board; California Floral Council; California Grape and Tree Fruit; California Grain

and Feed Association; California League of Food Processors; California Pear Growers Association; California Seed Association; California State Floral Association; California Warehouse Association; Far West Equipment Dealers Association; almost every county farm bureau; Nisei Farmers League; Olive Grower Council of California; and on and on and on, with different farms, grape growers, olive growers, cotton ginners, poultry farmers--pages and pages of people pleading with us to do something. And we do nothing.

We will not repass a bill that has been passed by this Senate once, and we are in the middle of a major crisis. So I am kind of at my wit's end.

Let me tell you a little bit about the AgJOBS bill. It is a 5-year pilot. It would provide a one-time opportunity for trained and experienced agricultural workers to earn the right to apply for legal status. It would reform the H-2A visa process so that if new workers are needed, farmers and growers have a legal path to bring workers to harvest their crop. Workers can apply for a blue card if they can demonstrate with records that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 days within the previous 2 years.

I can see my time is running out. May I have a couple minutes more to sum up?

Thank you very much.

The blue card would require that they work in American agriculture for an additional 150 workdays per year for 3 years, or 100 workdays per year for 5 years. At the end of that time, they would be able to obtain a green card. Over the 5 years, it would apply to 1.5 million individuals, which would provide a stable, ongoing workforce for the United States. Workers would be required to pay a fine of $500, show that they are current on their taxes, that they have not been convicted of a crime that involves bodily injury or harm to property in excess of $500. Employment would be verified. The program would be capped and sunset.

The Department of Homeland Security would ensure that the ID cards are encrypted, that they have biometric identifiers, that they contain anticounterfeiting protections. So you would be able to identify 1.5 million people who are currently illegal. You would know who they are. You would know they are now legal. You would know they were working in agriculture, which desperately needs them.

We would also streamline the current agricultural guest worker program, the H-2A program, which is now unwieldy and ineffective. The bill would shorten the labor certification process, which now takes 60 days or more, reducing the approval process to 48 to 72 hours.

There are a number of specifics. It freezes the adverse wage rate for 3 years, to be gradually replaced with a prevailing wage standard. The H-2A visas would be secure and counterfeit resistant. In this way, agricultural labor would have a permanent workforce and you would have a secure guest worker program, H-2A, where necessary, to go in to areas for short periods of time. It is a win/win situation. It has passed this Senate.

The losses are in the hundreds of millions of dollars across the Nation, and we do nothing. We stiff the American agricultural industry. I have a hard time understanding that. I know the votes are here to do it. We could probably do it. Through the Chair, I ask Senator Craig, does he not believe we could pass this bill with maybe an hour on the floor of the Senate.

If I may, the letter we wrote to Leader Frist asking that it be calendared, has the Senator received a response? Because I have not.

That is the point. We did not just write this letter. Perhaps the frustration is showing today. It would be my hope we could get this calendared sometime in January and get it passed so that the spring plant can happen all throughout this Nation. Otherwise, I can only tell you, in my State, farmers who can are going to go to Mexico. Farmers who can are going to plant in Mexico. Is this what we want to have happen? I don't think so.

I thank Senator Craig for his longstanding work on this issue and for his leadership. When one comes to the floor of the Senate, sometimes one thinks nobody is listening. I hope somebody is listening. I hope people recognize that we have a huge industry out there. It needs attention. It needs a workforce. Americans will not do this work. Therefore, it is a migrant workforce that does the work. There is a methodology to legalize it, to limit it, to sunset it, and to fix what has been a broken H-2A program and in a bill that has already passed the Senate once already during the 109th Congress.

I thank the Chair and my colleague from Idaho.

Mr. President, I take a moment to pay tribute to David Hermance, who died in a tragic plane crash on November 25. David was the North American executive engineer for Advanced Technology Vehicles at Toyota.

Many Americans may not know David's name, but they know his work. He was one of the most well- respected environmentalists in America. He was a pioneer--called the Father of the American Prius--who worked tirelessly to help explain the workings and benefits of hybrid and other advanced technology vehicles.

David was an outspoken and passionate advocate. He championed advanced technology vehicles throughout his career at General Motors and Toyota and he earned a well-deserved reputation for being the most authoritative voice in America on hybrid technology. He helped me and many others better understand this new technology and its potential for creating a more sustainable future and a healthier world.

David was instrumental in raising awareness about the importance of these new technologies to help protect our environment. His death is a loss for us all.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Robert Gates to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as the next Secretary of Defense.

I applaud the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senators Warner and Levin for moving this nomination to the floor in a prompt but thoughtful manner.

I was heartened to see the forthrightness and candidness employed by Dr. Gates at his confirmation hearing yesterday.

He fully admitted the need for a ``change of approach'' in Iraq, stating his view that we are not currently winning the war and that the ``status quo'' is unacceptable.

Additionally, he expressed a willingness to use ``fresh eyes'' in looking for solutions and promised to keep all options on the table.

He committed to cooperating with the Congress in pursuing its oversight responsibilities and said he would always speak boldly and candidly about what he believed.

Finally, Dr. Gates talked about the complexities of the situation in Iraq, acknowledging that a number of major mistakes had been made, including: the lack of appreciation for how ``broken'' Iraq was economically, socially, and politically, and the costs associated when we invaded and the problems created by the mobilization of the Iraqi Army and the role that our deBaathification policy played in stoking the current insurgency.

It is my sincere hope that Dr. Gates' nomination signals that the administration intends to pursue a new direction in Iraq, and the Middle East region as a whole. The President should see the strong support for Dr. Gates as a call from Congress for moving away from the ``stay the course'' strategy he has pursued.

I hope that Dr. Gates will work with Congress to establish a clear- eyed and

pragmatic approach toward our Nation's defense policy and seek to restore the morale of our military.

I hope Dr. Gates will be open to dissenting views and allow the military personnel around him to share unvarnished, independent advice.

Dr. Gates is a well-qualified candidate for this critical position. His service at the top levels of the CIA and the National Security Council has provided close insights into the Pentagon's operations and policies.

As a former member of the Iraq Study Group, ISG, Dr. Gates understands the complex challenges our Nation faces. He will be in a unique position to implement the recommendations in the ISG report, and other options for pursuing a new strategy.

It is clear to me that during the recent midterm elections the American people voiced their disapproval with this administration's Iraq policies and voted for a change of course.

And the time for changing the course is now.

The Iraq War has now lasted longer than the United States involvement in World War II. More than 2,900 troops have been killed since March 19, 2003. More than 3,000 Iraqis are being killed in sectarian violence every month.

Today our military is stretched thin and its readiness diminished. Some of our troops are now on their third and fourth rotations. And, over in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military's equipment is wearing out or being destroyed at a cost of nearly $20 billion a year.

Ultimately, this war can only be won politically.

Our Nation must make it clear to the Iraqi government that this is not an open-ended commitment. Iraqis must step forward and take responsibility for their own security. Only they can make their country a stable state.

The administration's war planning was shortsighted and ill-conceived. By failing to provide adequate troops to secure Iraq, its infrastructure, its weapons depots, and its streets, this administration placed the entire mission in Iraq in jeopardy.

Dr. Gates has stated that he intends to improve the Department of Defense's planning efforts in regards to postcombat operations--a capability sorely missing from the current leadership.

I am also encouraged by Dr. Gates apparent willingness to involve Iran and Syria in diplomatic dialogue--a stark contrast from the Bush administration's current policy.

I hope that President Bush will accept the advice of the Iraq Study Group and Dr. Gates to engage in diplomacy to solve this crisis.

Additionally, Dr. Gates has expressed concerns regarding the Pentagon's continued expansion of intelligence activities since the September 11, 2001, attacks.

I share these concerns and look forward to working with Dr. Gates and Ambassador Negroponte to ensure that there is an appropriate and transparent division of responsibilities between military and civilian intelligence agencies.

Fifteen years ago, Dr. Gates came before the Senate as President George H.W. Bush's nominee to become the Director of Central Intelligence, DCI.

During 4 days of hearings, a number of questions were raised regarding his involvement and knowledge of the Iran-Contra scandal. In addition, allegations were aired regarding the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.

These are serious concerns.

But what is critical to me today is that he shows an independent mind and willingness to eschew ideology and partisanship to do what is best for our men and women in uniform.

It is clearly time for instituting new leadership at the Pentagon-- something I first called for almost a year ago. But such a change will only matter if the President himself is willing to pursue a different course.

I am looking forward to working with Dr. Gates on defense matters, to address the needs of our troops and their families, and to finally bring about a change in our Iraq policy--certainly the time is far past due.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--with my cosponsor Senator Boxer--a historic bill that will end 18 years of litigation between the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Friant Water Authority, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The legislation will enact a settlement that accomplishes the restoration of California's second longest river, the San Joaquin, while maintaining a stable water supply for the farmers who have made the Valley bloom and have supplied low-cost agricultural products to Americans from coast to coast.

The alternative to a consensus resolution to this long-running western water battle basis is to continue the fight. 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.

Because the settlement provides a framework that all interests can accept, 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 before we end the 109th Congress.

The legislation indicates how the settlement agreement 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 and relaxation 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 that 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 comanagement 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.

Last month, 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 important 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, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--with my cosponsor Senator Boxer--a historic bill that will end 18 years of litigation between the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Friant Water Authority, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The legislation will enact a settlement that accomplishes the restoration of California's second longest river, the San Joaquin, while maintaining a stable water supply for the farmers who have made the Valley bloom and have supplied low-cost agricultural products to Americans from coast to coast.

The alternative to a consensus resolution to this long-running western water battle basis is to continue the fight. 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.

Because the settlement provides a framework that all interests can accept, 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 before we end the 109th Congress.

The legislation indicates how the settlement agreement 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 and relaxation 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 that 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 comanagement 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.

Last month, 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 important 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, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank Senator Kohl for his stewardship of the Agriculture appropriations bill. His work on this bill will provide funding to support our Nation's farmers and consumers, and I support those efforts wholeheartedly.

Mr. President, my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, and I would like to take a moment to engage our colleague from Wisconsin in a colloquy.

A few months ago, nearly every grocery store in the country was advised not to sell fresh spinach due to confirmed incidents of E. coli bacteria coming out of California. The impact of this outbreak was devastating: it sickened nearly 200 people, killing 3. It also resulted in more than $70 million in economic losses to spinach growers.

As you know, one of the many responsibilities of the FDA is to oversee the safety of fruits and vegetables. In my State, where more than half of all fresh fruits and vegetables are grown, this is clearly an enormous task and one that requires advanced scientific methods for detection and response.

Unfortunately, the FDA does not have that kind of presence in the Western United States to conduct and carry out the necessary scientific testing and outreach that we should expect. There are currently three FDA food safety research centers in the Nation: one in Maryland, one in Illinois, and one in Mississippi. None of these centers is connected with the vital and dominant food systems in California, which greatly impairs the FDA's effectiveness in addressing the food safety and security research, teaching, and outreach needs in the Western United States.

Last year we provided funding to establish an FDA Western Center for Food Safety to serve the vast agricultural food safety needs of the Western United States. This center would be collocated with the Western Center for Food Safety and Security at the University of California at Davis, a place where the FDA would benefit from the synergy of working in an academic research environment with university scientists and with university extension specialists who already have the critical relationships with farmers that the FDA needs to be effective. Unfortunately, this funding was not agreed to by the House conferees.

The University of California at Davis already has a facility for the FDA scientists to move in to. This year I am once again seeking your assistance for a modest appropriation to begin the development of this FDA presence to serve the food safety needs of the vast agricultural regions in the Western United States and the consumers across the country who depend on a safe and reliable food supply.

Mr. President, today it is my pleasure to commend Mrs. Natalie Wilson Crawford for her service to the Nation and to the U.S. Air Force.

Mrs. Crawford is an internationally recognized expert on air and space power who has been at the California-based RAND Corporation since 1964. For the past 9 years she has held the position of vice president, RAND Corporation, and director of Project AIR FORCE, one of the principal research divisions of this famous think tank.

For 60 years, Project AIR FORCE, originally called Project RAND, has provided independent and objective analysis on issues of major concern to the U.S. Air Force. During her tenure as its director, Mrs. Crawford built and sustained an outstanding research team, expanded the research agenda, and further cemented RAND's strategic relationship with the Air Force's senior leaders.

Among her many honors, Mrs. Crawford has twice been awarded the Air Force's Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service. In 2003, she received both the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Air Force Analytic Community and the Lieutenant General Glenn Kent Leadership Award.

In October 2006, Mrs. Crawford stepped down from her administrative roles in Project AIR FORCE, but she will continue to act as a senior advisor to RAND's chief executive officer and as a senior mentor on the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, where she has served since 1988.

It is my pleasure and privilege to thank Natalie Crawford for her extraordinary contributions to preserving America's national security. The dedication and energy she has shown in her four-decade career demonstrate the highest ideals of service and commitment.

Mr. President, today I honor Dr. David E. Janssen, who is retiring after an impressive career spanning 40 years as a public servant in the State of California.

Dr. Janssen is retiring as chief administrative officer of the county of Los Angeles where he has served with distinction since August 1996. I extend to him my sincere congratulations for the decades of dedicated service that he has given to his Nation, his State, and his county.

For the past decade, Dr. Janssen has played an invaluable role in helping the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors accomplish its Federal and State legislative priorities.

While his many accomplishments are too numerous to list here, his most recent efforts clearly demonstrate just how much he has meant to Los Angeles county and my State over his entire career.

Dr. Janssen has advocated closely on important Medicaid reform proposals and helped to improve the flexibility of Federal foster care funds.

He coordinated and developed advocacy strategies with local government and housing and community development groups in the Los Angeles region to protect vital community development block grant funds.

Working to improve the county's health system, Dr. Janssen helped assure critical Federal funding guarantees and assisted in creating an action plan in the event of an avian flu epidemic. He also collaborated with the State's congressional delegation, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the administration to secure funding for Martin Luther King/Charles R. Drew Medical Center--King/Drew--in south Los Angeles, preserving critical, life-saving services, and ensuring that the patients served by King/Drew continue to have access to care.

In an issue that is of utmost importance to my State, he worked closely with key administration officials and members of Congress to ensure that Los Angeles Air Force Base would not be closed or realigned.

In terms of homeland security, Dr. Janssen led the county in working to boost funding and increase the allocation of first responder grants to local governments. Likewise, he supported legislation to adopt a threat-based formula that directs homeland security funds where they are needed most.

These are just some of Dr. Janssen's significant accomplishments on behalf of Los Angeles county and the State of California. As he retires, I extend my gratitude to him for his many contributions throughout a distinguished career. With sincere best wishes, I congratulate him upon his retirement from public service. I am pleased to join his many coworkers, family, friends, and associates in wishing him health, happiness, and good fortune in all his future endeavors.

Mr. President, on October 26, 2006, the Esperanza fire engulfed five firefighters dispatched to battle an uncontrollable blaze. All five firefighters died as a result.

Before it was extinguished, the fire consumed more than 40,000 acres of the southern California foothills and destroyed more than 30 homes. But while the forests will eventually return and the homes will be rebuilt, we can never reclaim the lives of our fallen firefighters.

Today I am cosponsoring a resolution with Senator Boxer to honor the firefighters and other public servants who bravely responded to the Esperanza fire.

On November 5, 2006, I delivered a eulogy at the Memorial Service in San Bernardino, CA, held in honor of the five firefighters who lost their lives in the fire. I believe it is appropriate at this time to enter these remarks into the Congressional Record:

I'm here to express gratitude to the five brave

firefighters who lost their lives in the battle against the

Esperanza fire.

They gave the ultimate sacrifice. Their heroism will not be

forgotten and so do their families' sacrifice as well.

My heart goes out to you, mothers and fathers, sisters and

brothers, sons and daughters of the five firefighters who

perished from Engine Crew 57: Captain Mark Loutzenhiser, Jess

McLean, Jason McKay, Daniel Hoover-Najera, and Pablo Cerda.

These five men were on the front lines, protecting

thousands of lives and tens of thousands of acres, when they

were overwhelmed by the fire's flames.

They are truly heroes.

Mark Loutzenhiser, Engine Captain, was 43 years old. He had

21 years of service as a firefighter. Mark was loved and

respected by so many in the Idyllwild community.

To Maria, I know little can be said that mutes grief and

overwhelming loss with one exception--five beautiful

children--Mark and Maria's enduring legacy.

To your five children, Jacob, Teesha, Savannah, and the

twins Kyle and Seth, I say this: Your dad was a true hero. He

was a coach, a mentor, a friend. He is great in all our eyes.

And to Mark's parents, Russ and Polly: You can be so proud

of his contributions. He made a difference. He leaves a

legacy: a grateful community--a wife--five children.

Jess McLean, Fire Engine Operator, was 27 years old. He had

seven years of experience.

To his mother, Cecilia: Jess was a thoughtful young man, a

model son. I am so sorry for your loss.

Jess's wife, Karen: You were married just three years ago.

But those three years are packed with memories, dreams shared

and you will find new strength because of these years.

Jason McKay, Assistant Fire Engine Operator, 27 years old.

He had five years of Forest Service experience.

To Bonnie McKay, Jason's mother, you know that Jason lived

out his boyhood dream of becoming a fireman.

To his fiance, Staci Burger, you know Jason as a brave and

decent man. Carry that with you, always.

Daniel Hoover-Najera, Firefighter, 20 years old and in his

second season of firefighting. As a young man, he was

determined to one day grow up and become a firefighter.

To his mother Gloria Ayala, his stepfather Efren Ayala, his

father and stepmother, Tim and Lisa Hoover, his brother

Michael, his sister Monica, and his grandfather Patrick

Najera, who helped raise him: I say this: Daniel will be

missed by all those who knew him. He was a passionate young

man, full of many talents, hopes and dreams. He was taken too

young. But he leaves a strong heritage--hold onto it.

Pablo Cerda, 23 years old when he lost his life in his

second season with the Forest Service.

To his father, Pablo, your son graduated from Riverside

Community College's fire academy only last May. He paid his

own way. His services, his terrible burns will not be

forgotten by any of us.

And to his older sister, Claudia, your brother Pablo will

be remembered for his strength and dedication. Be proud of

him always.

The deaths of these five members of the Engine 57 crew

represent a tremendous loss for this community, our State,

and the nation.

As we move forward from this painful tragedy, we must work

to protect ourselves from another fire like.

Just a few miles from here, in the mountains of the San

Bernardino National Forest, are over a half million acres of

bark beetle infested forest. Nestled among these trees are

the homes of roughly 150,000 people.

The five firefighters who lost their lives and the more

than 2,500 firefighters who fought this fire had to prevent

the flames from reaching the bark beetle infested areas,

which would have likely caused a catastrophic fire taking

with it, whole communities and thousands of homes.

Governor Schwarzenegger, Representatives Lewis, Bono, Baca

and I have fought for increased funding to protect our

communities from hazardous fuels.

We must recommit ourselves to this effort and remove these

dead and dying trees and non-native brush that present such a

great fire hazard.

And our firefighters must have the tools and training to do

their jobs.

To the 34 families who lost your homes. I say this: We will

help in any way we can. Our heartfelt feelings are extended

to you.

To the firefighters here today, we owe you no less. Know

that we value your service and commitment to fire prone

communities up and down the state.

Finally, in closing--to the families of these five brave

firefighters, I offer my sincerest and deepest condolences.

My heart is truly with you.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006.'' 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.

I am pleased that Senator Sessions is joining me as a cosponsor in introducing this bill. We have worked closely with the Department of Justice in crafting this legislation, and have used much of DOJ's transmitted language. DOJ fully supports the principles contained in this bill, and has indicated its support for this bill's efforts to fix this problem now to ensure that, despite a defendant's death, hard-won convictions are preserved and restitution remains available for the victims of crime.

This bill that I introduce today would do the following: 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 stating 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, all 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 stand in the shoes of the defendant and 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 parallel 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 last month. On October 17, 2006, 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.

That decision was not based on an error in the trial or any suggestion of unfairness in the proceedings. 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, this order essentially means that Mr. Lay is ``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 means that millions dollars, that the jury found were obtained by Mr. Lay illegally, will now remain untouched in the Lay estate. And everyone agrees that former Enron 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 raises the absurd possibility that even 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, this 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.

I have urged the Attorney General to continue to fight for Enron victims by appealing Judge Lake's dismissal to the Supreme Court. There, he should ask for a resolution of this split in the law between these Circuits, so that he can try to get the Parsons rule overturned. Unfortunately, the Justice Department has been noncommittal--it refuses to say if it will appeal the Ken Lay dismissal or not, even with the filing deadline fast approaching.

In the meantime, rather than remaining silent on this issue, and hoping that the Attorney General will appeal the Lay case as he should, I believe the time has come for Congress to take action.

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 individuals.

There is surely a legal and moral basis for not punishing the dead. But there is also, more importantly, a legal and moral basis for defending the living. The legislation that I introduce today codifies that distinction.

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

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.

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 prevent this type of injustice from ever happening again in the future.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the ``Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006.'' 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.

I am pleased that Senator Sessions is joining me as a cosponsor in introducing this bill. We have worked closely with the Department of Justice in crafting this legislation, and have used much of DOJ's transmitted language. DOJ fully supports the principles contained in this bill, and has indicated its support for this bill's efforts to fix this problem now to ensure that, despite a defendant's death, hard-won convictions are preserved and restitution remains available for the victims of crime.

This bill that I introduce today would do the following: 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 stating 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, all 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 stand in the shoes of the defendant and 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 parallel 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 last month. On October 17, 2006, 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.

That decision was not based on an error in the trial or any suggestion of unfairness in the proceedings. 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, this order essentially means that Mr. Lay is ``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 means that millions dollars, that the jury found were obtained by Mr. Lay illegally, will now remain untouched in the Lay estate. And everyone agrees that former Enron 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 raises the absurd possibility that even 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, this 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.

I have urged the Attorney General to continue to fight for Enron victims by appealing Judge Lake's dismissal to the Supreme Court. There, he should ask for a resolution of this split in the law between these Circuits, so that he can try to get the Parsons rule overturned. Unfortunately, the Justice Department has been noncommittal--it refuses to say if it will appeal the Ken Lay dismissal or not, even with the filing deadline fast approaching.

In the meantime, rather than remaining silent on this issue, and hoping that the Attorney General will appeal the Lay case as he should, I believe the time has come for Congress to take action.

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 individuals.

There is surely a legal and moral basis for not punishing the dead. But there is also, more importantly, a legal and moral basis for defending the living. The legislation that I introduce today codifies that distinction.

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

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.

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 prevent this type of injustice from ever happening again in the future.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am looking for the chairman on this bill. I know she has no objections. I request a voice vote on the amendment.

Mr. President, I have no objection to amendment No. 5131, as modified.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, beg your pardon, if this is by voice vote, I suggest we have a voice vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5126

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5127

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5129

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5135

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5141

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5128, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5130, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5138, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5146

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I am aware that there is a need for more veterans cemeteries nationwide. I would be very interested in hearing about the situation in Montana.

What is being done to address this need?

I applaud the initiative of the residents of Yellowstone County, and I can assure the distinguished Senator from Montana that I will work in conference on this bill to include language in the Statement of Managers directing the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to review the status and progress of the Yellowstone County National Veterans Cemetery project and report his findings back to Congress.

I share my home State colleague's concern for the Child Development Center at Beale. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, I, too, believe that it is critical to fund the CDC at Beale. The Air Force has included $14 million in its Future Years Defense Plan for fiscal year 2008, which clearly indicates the Air Force intends to include this project for funding in the President's budget request. I strongly urge the Air Force to retain this project in its projection for funding in next year's request.

funding for blinded veterans' services

Mr. President, I thank Senator Salazar for his dedication to our Nation's veterans and to the effort to provide comprehensive care to blinded veterans in particular. I certainly understand the devastating impact that severe eye injuries have on the lives of service men and women returning from combat and agree we must work to ensure that our efforts in Congress keep pace with the rising costs of providing care to these men and women and with the growing numbers of service members returning home in need of such care.

The language contained in this report is strong, and I am confident it will help to push the VA in the right direction as we strive to provide care for blinded veterans in the most comprehensive and efficient way possible. I remain committed to that effort and to working with my colleagues in both parties to see that blinded veterans receive the best services our government can provide.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, if I might, I thank the chairman, my friend, the Senator from Texas. We usually have a very easy time with this bill. There are usually not many amendments to this bill. But perhaps because this is the first vehicle to move a number of items, they seemed to come up this afternoon. I think the chairman has shown great leadership and flexibility. Sometimes they go together and sometimes they do not, but she has possessed both today.

I am very grateful, and the Democratic side is very grateful for it as well. This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It takes good care of veterans. It eliminates the problem of financing that we had last year. Overall, it is an excellent bill. I am very proud to have worked with the chairman. I thank her.

I thank the majority staff. And, of course, I thank my staff, of which Christina Evans is sitting on my left, and B.G. Wright and Chad Schulken back in the box.

It has been a good day. At least we have accomplished a substantial bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Through the Chair.

Mr. President, I was trying, as the Senator from Pennsylvania spoke, to figure out exactly what bill it is he is speaking of. I gather this is his bill, not our bill, on which he is adding some of our bill's provisions, but he leaves out the critical part, which is reinforcing the exclusive authority of FISA; is that correct?

If I may, a second question: Will this bill allow the President to use his plenary authority to wiretap outside of FISA, first, and secondly, will it allow for program authority for wiretaps?

Again, through the Chair, if the Senator will put up with this for a moment more, is that to handle the switching issue, or would this apply to all calls coming in from outside the United States are exempt?

I thank the Senator. He has been a very distinguished chairman of the committee. This is an issue in which, as a member of the Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee, I have had an intense interest. The Senator from Pennsylvania recognizes that. I appreciate that.

I am unsure whether this bill is for the purpose of judicial review of the President's article II authority--I think I understand what the Senator is doing. He is essentially exempting all those calls which come into the United States, not calls from point A to point B in the United States. I think that bears further discussion, but I trust no action will be taken on this bill in this session but that the Senator from Pennsylvania is submitting it as a marker for next year.

I thank the chairman. I would like to look very closely

at this bill. I am very reluctant to move right now. You have mentioned the case percolating up through the courts now. I am really unsure why passage of this bill now would achieve anything. It seems to me it would be better to wait and see what the court does. I would appreciate your response to that.

Except what you are doing is effectively exempting, then, a call from outside into the United States because of the change in technology.

I will be very interested to look at the bill, and I thank you very much for this dialog. And this completes my questions. Thank you.