Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a no- confidence resolution on the leadership of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Secretary Rumsfeld has overseen a failed strategy, policy, and military tactics for Iraq that have weakened the state of our national and homeland defense.

Despite clear evidence that our current strategy is not working, he has stubbornly stuck to a deteriorating course.

We need a new direction. ``Staying the course'' is not the answer and Secretary Rumsfeld has been the key proponent of this failed policy.

I first publicly called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation 6 months ago, after watching 3 years of mismanagement of our war effort in Iraq.

And, since that time, I have become more convinced of the importance of changing the leadership at the top of the Department of Defense.

In truth, the Bush administration's failed strategy and tactics in Iraq have significantly diminished the United States' standing in the world and made waging the global war on terror more difficult.

Despite optimistic reports by Pentagon officials regarding the security situation near Baghdad over the past several weeks, it is clear that Iraq is on the edge of civil war.

For example, in recent days news agencies have reported that: 40 bodies, 25 of which had been blindfolded and executed by gunshot, were discovered in a mass grave in Baghdad--this from the New York Times.

The number of killings in and around Baghdad grew substantially last week despite an American-led security crackdown, with morgues receiving as many bodies as they had during the first three weeks of August combined--this from the Los Angeles Times.

Finally, the Iraqi parliament voted to extend a state of emergency throughout much of the country a strong indication that the security situation remains tenuous--this from the Associated Press.

Yet we are continuing down the same failed path, buttressing the Shiite-dominated government and preventing it from taking actions necessary to end the insurgency and prevent a full-scale civil war.

As a result of these failed policies under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, Iraq continues to be a nation in chaos.

Yes, there is a permanent government in place. But the ministries do not function properly; terror, kidnappings, and assassinations continue on a daily basis.

Iranian influence is growing, and Shiite militias dominate the police.

Civilian killings now top 3,000 a month, and a Sunni-Shiite civil war is emerging, with U.S. forces caught in the middle.

Despite spending almost $20 billion on reconstruction efforts, our plan for Iraq reconstruction has stalled as security requirements continue to tax our resources.

Unemployment may be as high as 50 percent, many utilities are not online, and demand for subsidized gasoline--U.S. $0.55/gallon--has led to a thriving black market and corruption. Oil production has yet to meet revenue goals.

The list of failures in our war policy in Iraq is comprehensive and long:

(1) Failed strategic, logistical, and financial planning for the Iraq war

Secretary Rumsfeld ignored suggestions early on by advisers like Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, Senators such as John McCain, and reports by well-respected think tanks such as the RAND Corporation, that many more ground troops were needed.

For questioning Rumsfeld's plan, General Shinseki was effectively forced into early retirement.

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey found himself out of a job after differing with Rumsfeld in suggesting that the Iraq war might cost up to $200 billion Rumsfeld initially argued that it would cost only $50 billion.

With the addition of emergency supplemental funding, the cost of the Iraq war has now reached $320 billion, with spending averaging $2 billion a week.

American troops went into combat without the proper equipment and protection. Hundreds of soldiers and marines were killed or maimed in the early stages of the war due to the lack of appropriate vehicle and body armor.

Yet in responding to these concerns, Secretary Rumsfeld famously quipped, ``You go to war with the Army you have.''

(2) Failed policy of de-Baathification, including abolishing the Iraqi Army with no severance pay or pensions for soldiers

Perhaps the biggest strategic mistake made by military planners, beyond the lack of adequate troop strength, was the decision to demobilize the standing Iraqi Army, while ``blacklisting'' other civilian professionals who had been members of the Baathist Party.

Many of these soldiers, government officials, doctors, lawyers, and other civilian workers, with their jobs eliminated and no money to feed their families chose to join the insurgency that has now grown to an estimated 20,000 individuals.

Remarkably, Rumsfeld until only recently tried to characterize the insurgency as a group of ``foreign fighters,'' failing to understand the deep resentment cultivated by American policies in post-Saddam Iraq.

(3) Faulty belief that capturing Baghdad meant controlling Iraq

As related in recent firsthand accounts of the initial invasion, commanders on the ground quickly identified the threat of a guerilla war, but after GEN William Wallace, who was leading the march toward Baghdad, recommended crushing the small insurgency along the way, he was nearly forced to resign.

While U.S. forces successfully captured Baghdad within 3 weeks, this strategy allowed an insurgency to grow within the Sunni triangle and hundreds of foreign fighters to stream across Iraq's unguarded borders.

(4) Failure to manage the chaos in the aftermath of the invasion

Some of the first signs that the U.S. lacked adequate troops were the pictures of Iraqis rioting and looting in several key cities immediately following the invasion.

Rumsfeld dismissed the chaos as a symbol of ``freedom and democracy,'' simply saying ``stuff happens.'' Sadly, it demonstrated to all Iraqis that American military resources were limited.

This shortage of U.S. troops also resulted in a failure to secure munition dumps and small arms that were stashed throughout the country.

The insurgency was able to thrive through access to these munitions and weapons caches, and many American troops have been killed or injured from bombs or RPGs that could have been secured in the initial invasion, had we had enough troops.

(5) Failure to stop abuse and torture

One of the greatest stains on America's reputation that will come out of the war effort is our failure to properly protect the rights of those detained by our military.

While most of our men and women have served honorably, it is clear that the Pentagon allowed a culture of abuse to develop in prisons such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Camp Nama.

Yet despite the clear evidence of detainee abuse, no high-level official has been held accountable for these actions.

(6) Failure to maintain military readiness

The Iraq war has taken a significant toll on the state and preparedness of our military. Our armed forces are stretched thin; our men and women in uniform overburdened.

Last month, the Marine Corps was forced to issue call-up orders for 2,500 from its Individual Ready Reserve the first time it has had to do so since the war started.

Top Army commanders have suggested that two-thirds of all Army brigades do not meet the necessary state of readiness, and National Guard chief, LTG Steven Blum, estimates that two-thirds of the National Guard cannot even be deployed today.

Equipment is fast wearing out. It is estimated that the Army and Marines will need a combined $75 billion over the next 5 years for maintenance, repair, and replacement alone.

As a result of failed policies under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, we may well end up with a broken force and an Iraq held captive by civil war.

There must be a change in course and a change in those who have managed the war effort.

This is critical if we want to have any chance for success in Iraq.

Just last week, Secretary Rumsfeld employed truly shameful rhetoric by comparing those who have criticized the Iraq War with those who ``appease[d]'' the Nazis in the run-up to World War II.

In the speech at the American Legion conference in Salt Lake City, Rumsfeld stated:

Once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to

confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism but some

seem not to have learned history's lessons.

Questioning the patriotism of those who might not support the war, he said:

The struggle we are in is too important the consequences

too severe to have the luxury of returning to the ``blame

America first'' mentality.

These baseless, partisan attacks are simply over-the-top and are being used to fill a gaping vacuum created by the lack of a successful plan for Iraq.

It is clear to me that this administration, led by the President and Secretary Rumsfeld, has been wrong at almost every turn.

Still, Secretary Rumsfeld remains in place, despite a growing number of bipartisan calls for the President to replace him.

Consequently, I believe that now is the time for the Senate to assert its oversight role and move forward with a vote of no-confidence.

Ultimately, it is true that President Bush is responsible for the failures in Iraq, but no Bush administration official was closer to the war planning than Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

Secretary Rumsfeld was and remains the chief architect of the strategy and policy in Iraq.

Consequently, it is time for President Bush to ask for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation and pursue a course correction under new Pentagon leadership.

There must be accountability for the disastrous policy pursued in Iraq.

It is time to bring in a new team to run our military. Secretary Rumsfeld must step down.

Our men and women in uniform deserve better.

Mr. President, I join Vice Chairman Rockefeller in calling for the Senate to take up and pass the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As has been said already, this legislation is the primary way in which the Congress directs the Nation's 16 intelligence agencies.

In writing this legislation, the Committee worked closely with the Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, to identify new authorities needed to protect our national security. The bill authorizes a pilot program to allow intelligence agencies to better share information that could help uncover and thwart a terrorist; empowers the DNI to build information-sharing systems across the Federal Government; and creates a strong inspector general for the intelligence community.

The bill also requires the intelligence community to explain how it is complying with the Detainee Treatment Act and provide Congress with information on any ``alleged clandestine detention facilities'' that it may be operating and continues the process of intelligence reform begun in 2004.

It is not surprising that the creation of the DNI and major organizational changes across the Government's national security apparatus left some things undone. This Intelligence authorization bill makes a number of small but useful changes to allow the DNI and the Nation's 16 intelligence agencies to operate on a day-to-day basis more effectively.

These are a few of the important provisions in this legislation. But here I would like to focus on language in the bill that was adopted on a bipartisan basis at committee. The provisions, sections 304 and 307 of the bill, ensure that the congressional Intelligence Committees are fully informed of all intelligence activities.

The National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to ``ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States. . .''.

Even more than other committees, the Intelligence Committee relies on the executive branch to provide it with information. Without full and timely notification of intelligence programs, problems, and plans, the committee cannot judge whether agencies have adhered to the law, nor can we judge whether changes in authorities or resources are needed to better protect national security.

It was, in fact, Congress's lack of regular oversight that led to the creation

of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1976. Following the Church Committee's report on Executive abuses, the Senate established the Committee to ``provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.''

Thirty years after the Senate Intelligence Committee was created, however, it is not living up to its charge. Members of the committee are not provided with sufficient information on intelligence programs and activities to legislate or oversee to intelligence community. Provisions in the stalled legislation--the Intelligence authorization bill--would fix this problem.

A good example of how the system fails to work is the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was publicly revealed last December but which had not previously been briefed to the committees.

According to the White House, this National Security Agency program was too sensitive to be briefed to the 15 Senators on the committee-- the 15 Senators hand-selected by the majority and minority leaders for this assignment.

Instead, the President and Vice President decided to inform only 8 of the 535 Members of Congress: the party leadership in both houses and the leadership of the two intelligence committees.

The National Security Act does provide for limited briefings to these eight Members of Congress but only for especially sensitive covert actions. The NSA program is not a covert action.

The administration also points to statute saying that it must take ``due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters. . .''

The 1980 Senate report accompanying this ``due regard'' provision explained this provision more directly--and makes clear that it does not allow the administration to restrict information from the committee indefinitely as was done with the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

The report recognized ``that in extremely rare circumstances a need to preserve essential secrecy may result in a decision not to impart certain sensitive aspects of operations or collection programs to the oversight committees in order to protect extremely sensitive intelligence sources and methods.''

The ``due regard'' language that the administration cites was intended, at most, to limit briefings on the most sensitive aspects of operations, in extremely rare circumstances. It was also expected that withholding this sensitive information would be a temporary measure. This language was not intended to conceal the existence of entire programs from all committee members.

So in effect, the White House has broadly interpreted the National Security Act to void meeting its responsibility to inform Congress.

This Intelligence authorization bill's changes to the National Security Act close the loopholes but, in fact, are far more generous to the executive branch than many would like. The bill acknowledges that there are times when not all Members have to be ``fully and currently'' briefed on all intelligence matters. However, in those cases, it requires that all committee members receive a summary of the intelligence collection or covert action in question.

This arrangement would allow the intelligence agencies to protect the most sensitive details of sources and methods, but crucially, it would allow the full committee to assess the legality, costs and benefits, and advisability of an intelligence operation.

The authorization bill also changes a definition in the National Security Act to make clear that the requirement to keep the committees ``fully and currently informed'' means that all Members will be kept informed. Congress has allowed the intelligence community to brief only the chairman and vice chairman on too many programs for too long.

I do not need to remind my colleagues that full committees, not a single Democrat and Republican, vote to authorize programs and funding. All Members must be informed if they are to perform their Constitutional duties.

The pending authorization bill would make one additional change to what it means for an intelligence activity to be authorized by Congress.

Stemming from the wiretapping abuses in the 1970s and because of the special challenges to conducting oversight of classified programs, the National Security Act prohibits the use of appropriated funds for any intelligence activities unless they are authorized by Congress. The pending bill would specify that an activity can only be ``authorized'' if the members of the authorizing committees have been fully briefed on it--or given a summary in the especially sensitive cases I described before.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4882.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont and myself, I offer an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill to address a humanitarian issue that I have actually thought a great deal about over a long period of time; that is, the use of the cluster bomb. The human death toll and injury from these weapons is felt every day, going back decades. Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and suddenly their arm is blown off.

I believe we need to take a look at our policies and adjust them. Specifically, our amendment would prevent any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until the rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as inhabited

parts of cities or villages or in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees.

Every year, hundreds of civilians are killed and many more are injured due to unexploded cluster bombs. From the fields of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, through the streets of Kosovo and Iraq, to the arid hills of Afghanistan and the playgrounds of Lebanon, these lethal relics of war continue to cripple life, hope, and peace.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor, covering approximately a .6-mile radius. In other words, their swath is over one-half mile. Yet in practice they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. They end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping. They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play. They end up in homes where families live. And in some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.

This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball. Children outside with their friends and relatives come across these cluster bombs. They pick them up out of curiosity because they look like balls and they start playing with them and a terrible result follows.

On March 25, 2003, Abdallah Yaqoob, whose picture is behind me, was sleeping on his bed in his family's home in Basra, Iraq, when he was hit with shrapnel from a cluster munitions strike in his neighborhood. He lost his arm, and his abdomen was severely injured. Abdallah was hit by a British L20A1/M85 munition.

Falah Hassan, 13, was injured by an unexploded ground-launched submunition in Iraq on March 26, 2003. The explosion severed his right hand and spread shrapnel through his body. He lost his left index finger and soft tissue in his lower limbs.

This is a photo of an unexploded M42 cluster submunition found on a barbed-wire fence in southern Lebanon in August 2006. You can see the size of the bomblet. Right next to it is a small pinecone. So this is a small munition hanging on a piece of barbed wire.

These unexploded cluster bombs become, in essence, landmines. Instead of targeting troop formations and enemy armor, unexploded bomblets target innocent civilians, seriously maiming or killing their victims. This runs counter to our values, and I believe it also runs counter to the laws of war.

Make no mistake, the impact of unexploded cluster bombs on civilian populations has been devastating. This first came to my attention in Laos, many years ago. In Laos today, there are between 9 and 27 million unexploded cluster bombs, leftovers from our bombing campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured since the war ended.

In the first gulf war, 61,000 cluster bombs were used, containing 20 million bomblets. Since 1991, unexploded bomblets have killed 1,600 innocent men, women, and children and injured more than 2,500.

In Afghanistan in 2001, over 1,228 cluster bombs with almost a quarter of a million bomblets were used. Between October 2001 and November 2002, that year, 127 civilians were killed, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

In Iraq in 2003, 13,000 cluster bombs with 2 million bomblets were used. Combining the first and second gulf war, the total number of unexploded bomblets in the region today is 1.2 million. How many people will die? Already, an estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 1991 because they innocently picked up one of these bomblets.

What gives rise in part to my amendment are recent developments in Lebanon over alleged use of cluster bombs. Throughout southern Lebanon, more than 405 cluster bomb sites containing approximately 100,000 unexploded bomblets have been discovered. Each site covers a radius of 220 yards. As Lebanese children and families return to their homes and begin to rebuild, they will be exposed to the danger of these unexploded bomblets lying in the rubble. Thirteen people, including three young children, have been killed so far, and 48 injured. One United Nations official estimates that the rate of unexploded bomblets is 40 percent. So far, more than 2,000 unexploded bomblets have been destroyed, but it will take 12 to 15 months to complete the effort.

Let me say that I join the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon, David Shearer, in calling on Israel to provide information on where the cluster bombs were used. Such information is vital to speed up the cleanup process and save lives.

We have called the State Department. We have asked for information about the conditions for the sale of cluster munitions to Israel, and we have not been able to get that information. It seems to me that information should be readily available and transparent, particularly to the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

The State Department is currently looking into charges that the cluster bombs found in south Lebanon were American made--I do not know that they were--and that they were used in violation of agreements between the United States and Israel. I do not know that they were, but I think we should know, and I think we should not cloak ourselves with ignorance. I am hopeful that this inquiry will be completed as soon as possible and the findings reported to the Congress. If there are violations, there should be consequences.

Looking at these figures, it is clear that several countries are awash with unexploded bomblets--Laos, 7 to 27 million; Iraq, 1.2 million; and then Lebanon, 100,000.

Some say: Why should we be doing this? I have always believed that this country stands for justice, it stands for right, and it has a moral compass. I believe the use of these weapons in civilian areas should be stopped.

I also know that there is a dud rate--in other words, a rate at which point these bomblets do not explode. I ask this question: How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of civilians in those countries where we leave behind such deadly weapons that indiscriminately kill young children? How are we supposed to speed up reconstruction efforts--building homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, ensuring electricity and water supplies--when populated areas are littered with these bombs? They remind innocent civilians that it was America that launched these weapons in populated areas; that it was America that failed to take the necessary steps to protect them from unexploded bombs by demanding a low failure rate; and it was America that failed to remove, expeditiously, unexploded bombs.

Simply put, unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment and make security stabilization and reconstruction efforts that much harder.

It is not just a humanitarian problem, it is also a military problem.

By showering targets with cluster bombs, we ensure that our own personnel will face thousands of unexploded bombs as they move forward. This forces them to change course. It slows the mission.

During the Iraq war, U.S. troops fired 6 rockets containing 4,000 bomblets to eliminate 1 artillery piece in a civilian neighborhood. With a 16-percent failure rate, approximately 640 unexploded bomblets were left behind. That is 1 artillery piece--6 rockets, 4,000 bomblets, and today 640 unexploded bomblets on the streets.

As an August 2003 Wall Street Journal article noted, ``Unexploded bomblets render significant swaths of battlefield off-limits to advancing U.S. troops.''

In fact, during the first gulf war, unexploded cluster munitions killed 22 of our own military. That was 6 percent of the total U.S. fatalities, and it injured 58. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen recognized the threat cluster bombs pose to civilians as well as our troops. He issued a memorandum which became known as the Cohen policy.

It stated that beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster bomblets would have a failure rate of less than 1 percent.

This was an important step forward, but we must remember that we still

have 5.5 million cluster bombs containing 728.5 million bomblets. That means we are still prepared to use an enormous number of cluster bombs that have significant failure rates--some estimate as high as 40 percent.

Out of the 728.5 million cluster submunitions, only 30,900 have self- destruct devices that would ensure a less than 1 percent so-called dud or unexploded failure rate. Those submunitions account for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. total.

The Pentagon has stated that cluster bomblets with failure rates of more than 1 percent ``will remain in the Department's inventory until used or until they have reached their extended life and are demilitarized.''

That is pretty clear information that we are going to continue to use them. I think that is wrong.

In fact, by fiscal year 2011, the United States will still possess 480 million old cluster munitions with significant failure rates.

The latest Pentagon study on cluster bombs cite failure rates of 2 to 6 percent for the entire U.S. arsenal. Other studies, however, including one by the GAO, found failure rates as high as 16 percent. U.S. marines in Karbala, Iraq, in 2003 believe the failure rate in some places was as high as 40 percent.

But even if you accept the conservative estimate of the Pentagon report, if the United States used its entire arsenal of cluster bombs, we would leave 27 million unexploded bomblets somewhere in the world. And a 16-percent failure rate would equal 117 million unexploded bomblets, and a 40-percent failure rate would equal 300 million unexploded bomblets.

Where am I going with all this? Think about it. Three hundred million unexploded bomblets spread from Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, southern Lebanon, wherever it may be, and those bomblets remain there decade after decade until somebody picks them up. And then that somebody is either killed or maimed for life.

I ask you: Is this the legacy we want to leave behind in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is this the legacy Israel wants to leave behind in Lebanon? Or is this the legacy anyone that manufactures and sells these munitions want to leave behind?

There are steps we can take to ensure a failure rate of less than 1 percent. And the Pentagon isn't going to do it. But at a cost of between $8 and $15, a self-destruct device can be added to cluster submunitions that destroy these munitions if, in fact, they survive intact.

The Pentagon has argued that adding this device is cost prohibitive. And it may well be.

The amendment of Senator Leahy and myself does not address this issue.

I would like simply to end by reading the amendment.

No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this

Act may be obligated or expended to acquire, utilize, sell,

or transfer any cluster munition unless the rules of

engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure that the

cluster munition will not be used in or near any concentrated

population of civilians.

Is that too much to ask? That if you are going to use a cluster munition which spews bomblets for a half mile that you be certain these are not going to be used in a civilian area? I think the answer is clearly is no.

I hope the Senate will see fit to agree to this amendment.

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

I share my home State colleague's support for the great work the Northern California Institute for Research and Education is doing on behalf of our veterans. NCIRE was founded in 1988 to administer research at the San Francisco VA Medical Center. It is the largest of over 90 nonprofit research institutes associated with the VA. It is also designated as a Department of Defense Center of Excellence in Neuroscience and Neuroimaging for its work benefiting our more recent veterans, including gulf war illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurotrauma and closed-head injury resulting from combat.

The Neuroscience Center of Excellence is the VA's premier research instrument for neurodegenerative diseases and brings together VA and Defense resources to conduct medical research in the areas most important for our active military and veterans. Research in neuroimaging, neuropsychiatry and basic neuroscience is targeted at diagnosis, prevention and management of neurodegenerative diseases, brain and spinal cord injuries, and neuropsychiatric disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

In the near future, NCIRE will be working to enhance high-resolution imaging strategies to predict and prevent combat-related damage to the brain and the nervous system, expand neuropsychiatric studies into PTSD, and understanding of vulnerabilities to PTSD and its effect on combat performance.

I would note that the House version of this bill provides $4 million for the Neuroscience Center of Excellence's research in neuroimaging and neuropsychiatric trauma in U.S. warfighters. I understand the chairman's concern about the growth of health research spending in this bill, but would point out that this facility is designated as a DoD Center of Excellence.

I look forward to working with Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye as we go to conference. It is my hope that we can work together to support this important funding provided in the House version of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is based on the simple fairness principle that you should pay for what you get, no more and no less. In this case California water districts have been paying for years for conveyance capacity on the Folsom South Canal that they do not use.

This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from the pooled, reimbursable costs of California's Central Valley Project, CVP, the capital costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. Congressman Lungren has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

In 1970, two CVP contractors signed contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation to take water from the Folsom South Canal, which had yet to be built. The canal diverts water out of Lake Natomas, a regulating reservoir immediately downstream of Reclamation's Folsom Reservoir, to areas in southern Sacramento County.

The canal was originally designed to incorporate five ``reaches''--or sections--and deliver water to southern Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, and to the San Francisco Bay area. Because the planned East Side Division irrigation project was never constructed, the anticipated deliveries through the Folsom South Canal never materialized. Only two reaches of the canal were constructed, and those are dramatically overbuilt. In a departure from normal reclamation policy, which dictates that signed contracts are required prior to construction of projects, signed contracts were not obtained.

The canal was built with the capacity to deliver 2.5 million acre- feet of water per year, but the only entity currently diverting water through the canal--the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD--has only diverted a maximum of 20,000 acre-feet per year. In short, a significantly oversized canal has been used to deliver a very small quantity of water.

Under reclamation policy, the agency allocates the capital costs of the canal to the pool of all CVP municipal and industrial water--M&I-- users regardless of whether they divert water through the Folsom South Canal. There are 32 M&I customers that are paying for the canal, including SMUD, Sacramento County Water District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District and Contra Costa Water District. Today, only SMUD diverts any water through the canal, albeit only about 8 percent of the canal's capacity; the other customers have little or no benefit to the project that they fund. This inequity is difficult to explain to ratepayers that are already burdened with replacing aging infrastructure and upgrading water treatment technologies.

My legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from those pooled reimbursable costs of the CVP, the costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. While final deferral calculations will be performed by reclamation as directed by this bill, it is estimated that this bill will result in a deferral of approximately $35 million excess capacity costs.

The concept of deferring costs is not unique to the Folsom South Canal. Congress has authorized deferrals for other elements of the CVP and in other reclamation projects. Even though there are many instances where customers pay for unused capacity, there are no instances that come close to approaching the absurd inequity of being forced to pay for a canal that is producing 8 percent of what reclamation promised it would deliver.

Should the amount of CVP water conveyed through the Folsom South Canal change in the future, this bill includes a provision directing Interior to review the change and adjust the deferred costs accordingly for unused capacity.

I strongly believe this deferral is the correct approach to this issue. Reclamation made the decision to oversize this canal based on future planned expansions--expansions that did not materialize. The water districts that use the existing canal for limited conveyances should not pay for the consequences of public policy decisions that resulted in a significantly oversized canal. Water districts should pay for the canal conveyance capacity that they use--I think this is a fairness principle that we can all accept.

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

Mr. President, this bill will allow two California counties, Ventura and Merced, to provide health care to Medi-Cal beneficiaries through the model they have determined best meets their communities' needs.

This legislation allows Merced and Ventura to establish community operated health systems, COHS, and raises the percentage of Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are enrolled in these programs from 16 percent to 18 percent.

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

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 26-year-old widow currently living in San Francisco.

Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study mass communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her.

Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning.

The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats's nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband.

Four days before Mr. Coats's death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death,

rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported.

Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to. . . . I've been here 4 years. . . . It would be like starting a new life.''

Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, CA. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats's seven brothers and sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving. . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.''

The San Francisco and bay area community is rallying strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats's right to remain in the country.

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years.

I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.''

I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death.

For these reasons, I offer this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing today the COMPETE Act of 2006, along with Senators Collins and Cornyn.

This is a bill which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow certain minor league athletes and ice skaters to be admitted temporarily into the United States to compete or perform in an athletic league, competition or performance under the same non-immigrant visa category as professional athletes.

The purpose of this legislation is to level the playing field for minor league sports teams that depend on getting the best athletic talent, regardless of where in the world that talent is discovered.

Under current law, minor league players and ice skaters who use the H-2B temporary visa category face severe visa shortages, while major league players qualify for uncapped P-1 temporary visas.

This unfair discrepancy in the law needs to be remedied, and the bill we are introducing today provides a commonsense solution because it allows minor league athletes--whether in baseball, basketball, hockey, or ice skating--who will perform competitively in the United States to apply for a P-1 temporary visa as opposed to an H-2B visa.

By way of background, The H-2B temporary visa category allows U.S. employers in industries with seasonal or intermittent needs to augment their existing labor force with temporary workers or augment their labor force when necessary due to a one-time occurrence which necessitates a temporary increase in workers.

Typically, H-2B workers fill labor needs in occupational areas such as construction, health care, landscaping, lumber, manufacturing, food service and processing, and resort and hospitality services.

Additionally, and perhaps what people do not know, is that not only is the

H-2B visa category used by loggers, lifeguards, crab pickers, amusement park employees, hotel and restaurant employees, but it is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes who are recruited by U.S. teams and theatrical ice skating productions.

A chronic H-28 visa shortage over the last 3 years has posed challenges for all industries using the H-2B visa category. In fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, the 66,000 visa cap has been reached, leaving American teams and the athletes they are recruiting out in the cold.

The COMPETE Act is a solution that not only helps professional American teams, but it also relieves the stress on the H-2B visa program added by a misclassified group.

The reality is that minor league athletes do not belong in the same visa category as seasonal workers. There is no reason major league athletes can't and shouldn't qualify for P-1 visas, which are granted to talented athletes, artists, and entertainers. The COMPETE Act would remedy this unfair situation.

What follows are some examples of how classifying minor leaguers and ice skaters as H-2B workers harms American sports and how it would be better that they be reclassified as other athletes for temporary P-1 visas.

Disney on Ice has seven domestic tours per year, bringing approximately $400,000 to each of the 150 to 170 U.S. cities in which it stops. There are not enough U.S. skaters to fill the roles each production requires, thus the organization relies on foreign skaters to supplement its cast. As the cap on H-28 visas has been consistently reached before the commencement of their training period--(August in Florida--and subsequent touring seasons--September through February or March--they are often short of ice skaters for their productions.

Major League Baseball was unable to bring 350 baseball players to the United States in the 2004 and 2005 seasons as a result of the H-28 visa cap having been met. Promotions of promising young players to the U.S. Minor League affiliates could not be made. Due to the unavailability of visas, signings of Canadian players drafted in baseball's June first- year player draft have declined by 80 percent. Furthermore, clubs who have already signed talented non-U.S. citizens have been prevented from bringing these players to the United States given that the H-2B cap has been reached in past years.

National Hockey League recruits from independent minor league teams, such as the American Hockey League, Central Hockey League, and the East Coast Hockey League, for foreign players to fill its ranks. Most minor hockey league teams' rosters are filled with a majority of foreign national professional athletes. This is evident by the number of slots that are requested each year by the minor leagues on their temporary labor certification applications filed with the Labor Department. For instance, the AHL requests approximately 21 player slots out of a roster of approximately 26 players; the other leagues are similarly situated where the number of requests for slots on temporary labor certifications is usually in the ballpark of 80 percent of the roster.

Further, hockey leagues usually have a few if not more clubs that are located in Canada. Of course these players do not need H-2Bs to play for a Canadian team, but in the event that they are traded during the season to a U.S. team, the acquiring team would have to file an H-2B. This frequently presents problems when the numbers have been exhausted as the trade becomes dependent upon the availability of a visa number and not the professional needs of the team. In addition, players are signed throughout the season; this can also prevent teams from signing players if the numbers have been exhausted. This is particularly true at the end of the season--usually March or April 1--when the numbers have been exhausted and the need to sign players for playoffs and finals increases.

National Basketball Association created a developmental league in 2001. The NBA Development League, or D-League, has functioned both as a feeder system for the NBA, whose teams annually call up players to fill out NBA rosters beginning in January and, commencing with the 2005-06 season, as a place where inexperienced NBA Players, within their first two seasons, may be assigned to get additional playing time. The D- League, currently comprised of 12 teams across the country, signs and recruits the best basketball athletes from around the world who are not playing in the NBA. On average, international players comprise approximately 10 percent of active D-League rosters, which currently stand at 10 players per team. The H-2B cap has prevented the D-League from being able to sign a significant number of qualified international players during each of the past two seasons.

So a simple, commonsense solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. This is what the COMPETE Act would do.

Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, and Feld Entertainment, which owns Disney on Ice, all support the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include minor league players and ice skaters.

Americans love their sports teams and want to see the highest caliber athletes competing or performing. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill rather than visa availability.

In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-28 visa category making more of those visas available to the industries that need them.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins and Cornyn, as well as Mikulski, Leahy, and Lieberman, in introducing the COMPETE Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Sessions to introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation protects the safety of consumers who wish to purchase prescription drugs over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies.

Just a few weeks ago, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a DOJ Oversight hearing. In discussing the Department's priorities, he singled out how ``the purchase of ... controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet is of

great concern.'' He noted how the Internet's wide accessibility and anonymity ``give drug abusers the ability to circumvent the law, as well as sound medical practice, a[s] they dispense potentially dangerous controlled pharmaceuticals.'' With ``no identifying... information on these Web sites, it is very difficult for law enforcement to track any of the individuals behind them.''

I believe this bill will address many of these problems that the Attorney General has identified.

To understand how many of these Internet pharmacy Web sites exist, just visit any Internet search engine. Type in the name of any controlled substance or prescription drug. Several Web sites will appear, offering to sell you these drugs without a prescription and without a medical examination. Some of these Web sites simply ask patients to send copies of medical records, with no verification of their validity.

Patients use these pharmacies to obtain addictive drugs, like Vicodin and Oxycontin. They can receive prescription medications like Viagra without a doctor performing a physical exam to ensure that an underlying health condition will not cause a dangerous side effect.

At the same time, receiving medications from a legitimate, licensed Internet pharmacy is one of the new conveniences ushered in by the Internet age. This bill preserves the ability of well-run pharmacies and well-intentioned patients to access prescription drugs and controlled substances by means of the Internet.

This legislation imposes basic, commonsense requirements on an industry that presents both promise and peril.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits an Internet pharmacy from dispensing or selling a prescription drug or controlled substance without an in- person examination by a physician.

Third, it allows a State attorney general to bring a civil action in Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operating in violation of the law and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

The disclosure requirements contained in this bill will allow patients to differentiate between shady offshore pharmacies, and legitimate licensed ones. Under this legislation, pharmacies must clearly disclose the name and address of the pharmacy, contact information for the pharmacist-in-charge, and a list of States in which the pharmacy is licensed to operate. They must also clearly post a statement that they comply with the requirements in this legislation.

The bill states pharmacies can dispense to patients only if they have a valid prescription from a practitioner who has performed an in-person examination. This requirement will ensure that doctors can verify the health status of a patient and ensure that the drug he or she will receive from the pharmacy is medically appropriate.

This legislation recognizes that in the case of an emergency, a patient may not always be able to see his or her typical physician. For that reason, it allows a doctor to designate a covering practitioner to write a valid prescription if he or she is not available.

Finally, this bill contains real penalties to hold accountable those who continue to operate pharmacies in violation of these requirements.

First, for Internet sales of prescription drugs and controlled substances, the bill makes clear that such activities are subject to the current Federal laws against illegal distributions and the same penalties applicable to hand-to-hand sales.

Second, the bill increases the penalties for illegal distributions of controlled substances categorized by the DEA as schedule III, IV and V substances, with new penalties if death or serious bodily injury results and longer periods of supervised release available after convictions.

The bill also allows a State's attorney general to file a Federal motion to stop these pharmacies from operating illegally, no matter where the entity is headquartered. Previously, this type of enforcement would require a filing in every State.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is based on the simple fairness principle that you should pay for what you get, no more and no less. In this case California water districts have been paying for years for conveyance capacity on the Folsom South Canal that they do not use.

This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from the pooled, reimbursable costs of California's Central Valley Project, CVP, the capital costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. Congressman Lungren has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

In 1970, two CVP contractors signed contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation to take water from the Folsom South Canal, which had yet to be built. The canal diverts water out of Lake Natomas, a regulating reservoir immediately downstream of Reclamation's Folsom Reservoir, to areas in southern Sacramento County.

The canal was originally designed to incorporate five ``reaches''--or sections--and deliver water to southern Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, and to the San Francisco Bay area. Because the planned East Side Division irrigation project was never constructed, the anticipated deliveries through the Folsom South Canal never materialized. Only two reaches of the canal were constructed, and those are dramatically overbuilt. In a departure from normal reclamation policy, which dictates that signed contracts are required prior to construction of projects, signed contracts were not obtained.

The canal was built with the capacity to deliver 2.5 million acre- feet of water per year, but the only entity currently diverting water through the canal--the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD--has only diverted a maximum of 20,000 acre-feet per year. In short, a significantly oversized canal has been used to deliver a very small quantity of water.

Under reclamation policy, the agency allocates the capital costs of the canal to the pool of all CVP municipal and industrial water--M&I-- users regardless of whether they divert water through the Folsom South Canal. There are 32 M&I customers that are paying for the canal, including SMUD, Sacramento County Water District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District and Contra Costa Water District. Today, only SMUD diverts any water through the canal, albeit only about 8 percent of the canal's capacity; the other customers have little or no benefit to the project that they fund. This inequity is difficult to explain to ratepayers that are already burdened with replacing aging infrastructure and upgrading water treatment technologies.

My legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from those pooled reimbursable costs of the CVP, the costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. While final deferral calculations will be performed by reclamation as directed by this bill, it is estimated that this bill will result in a deferral of approximately $35 million excess capacity costs.

The concept of deferring costs is not unique to the Folsom South Canal. Congress has authorized deferrals for other elements of the CVP and in other reclamation projects. Even though there are many instances where customers pay for unused capacity, there are no instances that come close to approaching the absurd inequity of being forced to pay for a canal that is producing 8 percent of what reclamation promised it would deliver.

Should the amount of CVP water conveyed through the Folsom South Canal change in the future, this bill includes a provision directing Interior to review the change and adjust the deferred costs accordingly for unused capacity.

I strongly believe this deferral is the correct approach to this issue. Reclamation made the decision to oversize this canal based on future planned expansions--expansions that did not materialize. The water districts that use the existing canal for limited conveyances should not pay for the consequences of public policy decisions that resulted in a significantly oversized canal. Water districts should pay for the canal conveyance capacity that they use--I think this is a fairness principle that we can all accept.

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

Mr. President, this bill will allow two California counties, Ventura and Merced, to provide health care to Medi-Cal beneficiaries through the model they have determined best meets their communities' needs.

This legislation allows Merced and Ventura to establish community operated health systems, COHS, and raises the percentage of Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are enrolled in these programs from 16 percent to 18 percent.

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

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 26-year-old widow currently living in San Francisco.

Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study mass communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her.

Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning.

The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats's nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband.

Four days before Mr. Coats's death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death,

rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported.

Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to. . . . I've been here 4 years. . . . It would be like starting a new life.''

Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, CA. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats's seven brothers and sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving. . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.''

The San Francisco and bay area community is rallying strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats's right to remain in the country.

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years.

I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.''

I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death.

For these reasons, I offer this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing today the COMPETE Act of 2006, along with Senators Collins and Cornyn.

This is a bill which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow certain minor league athletes and ice skaters to be admitted temporarily into the United States to compete or perform in an athletic league, competition or performance under the same non-immigrant visa category as professional athletes.

The purpose of this legislation is to level the playing field for minor league sports teams that depend on getting the best athletic talent, regardless of where in the world that talent is discovered.

Under current law, minor league players and ice skaters who use the H-2B temporary visa category face severe visa shortages, while major league players qualify for uncapped P-1 temporary visas.

This unfair discrepancy in the law needs to be remedied, and the bill we are introducing today provides a commonsense solution because it allows minor league athletes--whether in baseball, basketball, hockey, or ice skating--who will perform competitively in the United States to apply for a P-1 temporary visa as opposed to an H-2B visa.

By way of background, The H-2B temporary visa category allows U.S. employers in industries with seasonal or intermittent needs to augment their existing labor force with temporary workers or augment their labor force when necessary due to a one-time occurrence which necessitates a temporary increase in workers.

Typically, H-2B workers fill labor needs in occupational areas such as construction, health care, landscaping, lumber, manufacturing, food service and processing, and resort and hospitality services.

Additionally, and perhaps what people do not know, is that not only is the

H-2B visa category used by loggers, lifeguards, crab pickers, amusement park employees, hotel and restaurant employees, but it is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes who are recruited by U.S. teams and theatrical ice skating productions.

A chronic H-28 visa shortage over the last 3 years has posed challenges for all industries using the H-2B visa category. In fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, the 66,000 visa cap has been reached, leaving American teams and the athletes they are recruiting out in the cold.

The COMPETE Act is a solution that not only helps professional American teams, but it also relieves the stress on the H-2B visa program added by a misclassified group.

The reality is that minor league athletes do not belong in the same visa category as seasonal workers. There is no reason major league athletes can't and shouldn't qualify for P-1 visas, which are granted to talented athletes, artists, and entertainers. The COMPETE Act would remedy this unfair situation.

What follows are some examples of how classifying minor leaguers and ice skaters as H-2B workers harms American sports and how it would be better that they be reclassified as other athletes for temporary P-1 visas.

Disney on Ice has seven domestic tours per year, bringing approximately $400,000 to each of the 150 to 170 U.S. cities in which it stops. There are not enough U.S. skaters to fill the roles each production requires, thus the organization relies on foreign skaters to supplement its cast. As the cap on H-28 visas has been consistently reached before the commencement of their training period--(August in Florida--and subsequent touring seasons--September through February or March--they are often short of ice skaters for their productions.

Major League Baseball was unable to bring 350 baseball players to the United States in the 2004 and 2005 seasons as a result of the H-28 visa cap having been met. Promotions of promising young players to the U.S. Minor League affiliates could not be made. Due to the unavailability of visas, signings of Canadian players drafted in baseball's June first- year player draft have declined by 80 percent. Furthermore, clubs who have already signed talented non-U.S. citizens have been prevented from bringing these players to the United States given that the H-2B cap has been reached in past years.

National Hockey League recruits from independent minor league teams, such as the American Hockey League, Central Hockey League, and the East Coast Hockey League, for foreign players to fill its ranks. Most minor hockey league teams' rosters are filled with a majority of foreign national professional athletes. This is evident by the number of slots that are requested each year by the minor leagues on their temporary labor certification applications filed with the Labor Department. For instance, the AHL requests approximately 21 player slots out of a roster of approximately 26 players; the other leagues are similarly situated where the number of requests for slots on temporary labor certifications is usually in the ballpark of 80 percent of the roster.

Further, hockey leagues usually have a few if not more clubs that are located in Canada. Of course these players do not need H-2Bs to play for a Canadian team, but in the event that they are traded during the season to a U.S. team, the acquiring team would have to file an H-2B. This frequently presents problems when the numbers have been exhausted as the trade becomes dependent upon the availability of a visa number and not the professional needs of the team. In addition, players are signed throughout the season; this can also prevent teams from signing players if the numbers have been exhausted. This is particularly true at the end of the season--usually March or April 1--when the numbers have been exhausted and the need to sign players for playoffs and finals increases.

National Basketball Association created a developmental league in 2001. The NBA Development League, or D-League, has functioned both as a feeder system for the NBA, whose teams annually call up players to fill out NBA rosters beginning in January and, commencing with the 2005-06 season, as a place where inexperienced NBA Players, within their first two seasons, may be assigned to get additional playing time. The D- League, currently comprised of 12 teams across the country, signs and recruits the best basketball athletes from around the world who are not playing in the NBA. On average, international players comprise approximately 10 percent of active D-League rosters, which currently stand at 10 players per team. The H-2B cap has prevented the D-League from being able to sign a significant number of qualified international players during each of the past two seasons.

So a simple, commonsense solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. This is what the COMPETE Act would do.

Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, and Feld Entertainment, which owns Disney on Ice, all support the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include minor league players and ice skaters.

Americans love their sports teams and want to see the highest caliber athletes competing or performing. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill rather than visa availability.

In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-28 visa category making more of those visas available to the industries that need them.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins and Cornyn, as well as Mikulski, Leahy, and Lieberman, in introducing the COMPETE Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Kyl amendment dealing with royalty relief. The amendment would put an end to the Federal Government giving the oil and gas industry incentives to drill when oil and natural gas prices are high.

The amendment includes a provision that Senator Gregg and I successfully included in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill that would fix an administrative error that was made in 1998 and 1999. This provision also passed the House by a vote of 252 to 165.

In 1998 and 1999, the Department of Interior inadvertently omitted price thresholds from contracts entered into with oil and gas companies.

This omission has allowed oil companies to produce in Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico for free while consumers are paying $3 a gallon at the pump. And it will cost American taxpayers $10 billion over the next 25 years.

Essentially, the amendment provides energy companies with a choice: They can keep their existing leases royalty-free if they so choose, but be barred from bidding on a new lease, or agree to renegotiate the terms of the existing lease and be free to bid on new leases.

In my view, the oil companies do not need incentives at a time when they are making record profits. Just last week, the companies reported their second quarter profits, and again, they hit new records. ExxonMobil made $10.36 billion in the second quarter of 2006; that is almost $3 billion more than they made in the second quarter of 2005. Shell reported a second quarter profit of $7.32 billion--more than $2 billion greater than their second quarter profit in 2005. And BP's profits were $7.27 billion, or just less than $2 billion greater than their second quarter 2005 profits.

The oil companies themselves have said that they do not need royalty relief. At the Joint Energy and Natural

Resources and Committee hearing on November 9, 2005, the oil executives were asked by Senator Wyden:

Gentlemen, the President says and I quote ``With $55 oil,

we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.

There are plenty of incentives.'' Now today the price of oil

is above $55 per barrel. Is the President wrong when he says

we don't need incentives for oil and gas exploration?

All responded that they did not need incentives.

In addition, a lawyer for Shell Oil, Michael Coney, recently told the New York Times:

Under the current environment, we don't need royalty

relief.

The amendment passed by the House and by the Senate Appropriations Committee has spurred oil companies to admit publicly that they would be willing to renegotiate their leases to include a price threshold. But without congressional pressure, there is no reason for them to actually do it. We need to hold their feet to the fire in order to make sure the leases are really renegotiated.

I just want to take a minute to focus on the issues that the oil companies have raised in opposition to this amendment: First, they raised the issue that foreign companies were going to take over production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Regulations implementing the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act state that ``Mineral leases issued pursuant to the Act . . . may be only held by Citizens and Nationals of the United States . . . or private, public or municipal corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or of the District of Columbia or territory thereof . . .''

Secondly, the oil companies have argued that the amendment will hurt oil and gas production.

In fact, the amendment will not impact the daily production of more than 1.5 million barrels of oil and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico.

Oil companies are also free to explore and drill in the more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico that have already been leased to them. The amendment simply prohibits oil companies that fail to renegotiate existing royalty-free leases from obtaining new ones.

Finally, and most importantly, the oil companies say that the amendment attacks the sanctity of contracts.

And the oil companies couldn't be more wrong on this point.

CRS has issued two papers now stating that the amendment is constitutional. Specifically, CRS says ``the amendment's incentive to renegotiate . . . gives the government side a classic argument that there is no taking here: the decision of a . . . leaseholder to renegotiate is voluntary, and voluntary actions cannot be the basis of a taking claim.''

In addition, CRS shows that case law supports the fact that amendment does not violate contracts.

The courts have determined that if there is no legal compulsion, the voluntary compromise of a property right in exchange for an economic benefit is not a taking.

And I would like to reiterate--the amendment offers energy companies a choice: compromise a property right--exemption from payment of royalties--in exchange for a possible economic benefit--ability to bid on new OCS leases.

This amendment is not a taking, because the government is not taking any property right from the oil companies; it is merely offering an incentive to renegotiate their leases--an incentive that the oil companies are free to decline.

We should not be giving away this oil and gas for free while consumers are paying record high prices to fuel their cars and heat their homes, and oil companies are making record profits.

Unless we act to force the companies to renegotiate the leases, taxpayers are going to be left holding the bill for $10 billion.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose S. 3711, which will allow drilling in the gulf and create a new revenue-sharing scheme to provide additional resources for the Gulf States.

Let me first say that I am not opposed to drilling in the gulf. In fact, in 2001, I voted to open a portion of the gulf, known as lease sale 181, to drilling. That vote was a codification of the agreement between former President Clinton and the former Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles. Yet the agreement was repudiated after President Bush came into office and reduced the amount of acreage that could be drilled in the Gulf of Mexico at the request of Florida's Governor Jeb Bush.

In fact, I rise today in opposition to this bill not because it opens up areas of the Gulf to drilling, but because it protects the west coast of Florida from drilling until 2022--10 years beyond the current Presidential moratorium, while providing no additional protections for California's coast.

California should be accorded the same protection as Florida gets in this bill.

An oilspill would scar our coastline, costing billions of dollars and destroying vulnerable marine ecosystems.

In addition, a healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life. Our State's Ocean-dependent industries are estimated to generate $17 billion of revenue each year.

That is why Californians continue to be nearly united in their opposition to drilling off the coast. Today, 64 percent of Californians oppose drilling, and the number of Californians opposing drilling off our coast has only grown.

The opposition to drilling off of California's coast dates back more than 30 years. In 1972, California voters passed a citizen-initiated proposition which created the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, charged with developing a statewide plan for protecting the State's coastal resources. In the years that have followed, 17 cities and 9 counties have passed voter-approved ordinances opposing oil drilling.

In 1994, the California Legislature passed a bill that prohibited the extraction of oil and gas in State waters. Every year since the passage of this law, the State legislature has passed joint resolutions opposing oil drilling off the California coast.

The Governor, the California Resources Secretary, the Secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency, and the Lieutenant Governor, have all been on record supporting the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing activities off the coast of California.

Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, who is also the chairman of the California Ocean Protection Council, has in fact stated:

Any pending federal legislation regarding Outer Continental

Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing must retain all protections

from the Congressional leasing moratorium and should seek to

make these protections permanent.

Governor Schwarzenegger has sent a letter to every Senator expressing his ``opposition to any measure that would weaken the national oil and gas leasing moratorium that has been protecting the California coast for the last 25 years.''

I will ask that the Governor's letter be printed in the Record.

This bill cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would lift the current moratoria that exists for the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

Congressman Pombo, a key sponsor of the House bill, has said that the House will not accept the Senate bill. Congressman Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said on Wednesday, July 26, that ``we would certainly encourage--the Senate--to go broader'' than allowing drilling in the gulf.

Without a concrete commitment from the House leaders that they will take up the Senate bill and pass it without amendment, I cannot support this bill.

I would also like to express my disappointment that we have been denied an opportunity to offer amendments to this bill.

First, I believe we need a vote on an amendment I have cosponsored, authored by Senator Menendez, which would extend the moratoria for the Pacific and Atlantic coasts through 2022. For California, this would extend the Federal moratorium by 10 years as it is set to expire in 2012.

This amendment would provide the same protections to California as the underlying bill does for Florida. In so doing, the amendment would reliably protect the California coast by enacting a long-term legislative moratorium.

But we will not be allowed to consider this, or any other amendments that would promote energy efficiency and new energy technologies.

With oil prices at $75 per barrel, and natural gas almost $7 per million Btus, we need real fixes to our energy problems.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill is not going to fix this nation's energy problems.

I have also filed an amendment, with the bipartisan support of Senators Snowe, Durbin, Chafee, Inouye, Collins, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Boxer, Menendez, Lieberman, and Reed to increase fuel economy standards by 10 miles per gallon in 10 years.

Not only is this technologically feasible to do today, the proposal would also save more oil in just over 1 year than the underlying bill will generate.

Specifically, this amendment would save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2025, the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf every day.

That translates into 912.5 million barrels of oil per year, or just less than the 1.25 billion barrels that the underlying bill would generate.

Increasing fuel economy standards would also prevent 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, or the equivalent of taking 90 million cars--or 75 million cars and light trucks--off the road in 1 year.

Perhaps most importantly, though, the bill would save consumers as much as $2,500 over the life of a vehicle.

So if we are serious about bringing down the cost of gasoline at the pump, this amendment would be considered and adopted by the Senate.

And if we want to have a real impact on natural gas prices, we would be promoting energy efficiency.

California has proven that energy efficiency works--through the most aggressive energy efficiency policies in the Nation, the State has kept its per capita energy use flat while the rest of the Nation's energy use has increased by 50 percent.

That is why Senator Snowe and I wanted to offer an amendment on tax incentives for consumers to install the most energy efficient technologies in both residential and commercial buildings.

While proponents of the underlying bill say that lease sale 181 and 181 south will provide 5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, our amendment would save 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In other words, we can save more natural gas through the Snowe-Feinstein energy efficiency tax incentive package than from lease sale 181 and 181 south combined.

I also have significant fiscal concerns with the underlying bill.

While I commend Senator Landrieu for shepherding a proposal through the Senate that will generously benefit her State, I have concerns about the cost of the proposal.

According to estimates, the bill will cost the Treasury approximately $20 billion from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2055.

This bill creates a new permanent Federal entitlement for just four States that could cost the Federal Treasury $12-15 billion per year in 2056 and every year thereafter.

At a time this Nation is facing a mounting national debt of $8.4 trillion and a crushing Federal deficit of $300 billion, we should not be creating a new entitlement program for four States that could cost us hundreds of billions of dollars over the next century.

We are already struggling to meet our long-term commitments and face a looming entitlement crisis as baby boomers retire, straining the already overextended Social Security and Medicare systems.

For all these reasons, I am going to vote no on cloture and no on the bill.

Before I close, though, Mr. President, I would like to say that Senator Landrieu has been a tireless advocate for her constituents. I had hoped to support her in her efforts to restore coastal Louisiana.

Unfortunately, though, given the potential for a bill to come back that would threaten California's coast, I must vote against this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the Governors letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today in support of legislation to renew the ban on all imports from Burma for another year.

The House unanimously passed this bill earlier this month and I urge the Senate to follow suit today.

This bill amends the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to allow the sanctions to be renewed, 1 year at a time, for up to 6 years.

Simply put, the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council has done nothing over the past 3 years to warrant a lifting of the sanctions.

It has failed miserably to make ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards recognition of the 1990 elections--decisively won by Aung San Suu Ky's National League for Democracy--and a full restoration of representative government.

If we vote to lift the sanctions prematurely, we will only reward Rangoon for its rejection of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Let us review the facts.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the National League for Democracy, is confined to her home by orders of the military junta. She recently celebrated her 61st birthday under house arrest and on June 9, 2006, her detention was renewed for another year.

She has spent the better part of the past 16 years imprisoned or under house arrest.

The human rights situation in Burma is deplorable and demands a clear, unified response from the international community: 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail; according to a report by the Asian human rights group, Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, 127 democracy activists have been tortured to death since 1988; 70,000 child soldiers have been forcibly recruited; the practice of rape as a form of repression has been sanctioned by the Burmese military; use of forced labor is widespread; human trafficking is rampant; and the government engages in the production and distribution of opium and methamphetamine.

Given this substantial list of abuses, it is no surprise that a recent report by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and retired archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa--``Threat to Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act on Burma''--confirms the need for United Nations intervention.

It details how the situation in Burma fulfills each of the criteria used for past intervention by the Security Council: overthrow of an elected government; armed conflicts with ethnic minorities; widespread human right violations; outflow of refugees--over 700,000--and drug production and trafficking and the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The report should be required reading for all members of the United Nations who doubt whether or not the Security Council should take up Burma immediately.

Some may argue that because the sanctions have not achieved their desired goals--the release of Suu Kyi, the restoration of a free and democratic Burma--they should be terminated.

I could not disagree more. First, Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition continue to support a ban on all imports from Burma.

Second, the international community is coming together to put pressure on Burma: In July 2005, ASEAN forced Burma to forgo its scheduled rotation as chairman of the organization; on December 16, 2005, the U.N. Security Council debated the situation in Burma for the first time.

Last month, the United Nations Under Secretary for Political Affairs briefed members of the Security Council on his meeting with Suu Kyi, her first meeting with a foreigner since 2004; a group of legislators from member countries strongly urged ASEAN last week to take concrete measures to resolve the political situation in Burma; Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, whose country currently chairs ASEAN, blasted Burma in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week for undermining the credibility of ASEAN by not moving closer to democracy.

And, finally, I believe we are making progress on having a majority of the United Nations Security Council support adding Burma to the agenda of the Security Council for debate and possible passage of a binding, nonpunitive resolution on Burma.

By taking a leadership role on this issue, the United States has inspired other countries in the United Nations to put pressure on Burma to respect the wishes of its people and the international community to release Suu Kyi and restore a democratic, representative government.

They have begun to recognize that--as the Havel-Tutu report documents--Burma's actions not only represent a threat to the rights and freedoms of the Burmese people, but to the region and international community as a whole.

I strongly urge those members of the Security Council who have not done so to add their names to the growing list of countries who support adding Burma to the council's agenda. Passage of this legislation today will serve as another beacon of hope for the Burmese people and another example of leadership that will bring other countries to their side.

I remind my colleagues that under the provisions of this legislation, we will have the opportunity to debate sanctions on Burma every year. That is how it should be.

Sanctions are not a panacea for every foreign policy dispute. But, when they are backed by a robust international response, they can be effective and they can compel change.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has rightly said, ``As long as [Suu Kyi] remains under house arrest, not one of us is truly free''.

Today, I urge the SPDC to release Aung San Suu Kyi, recognize the 1990 elections, and engage in a true dialogue with the National League for Democracy.

I urge the United Nations Security Council to debate and pass a binding, nonpunitive resolution on Burma that recognizes the threat the regime poses to the region and calls for Suu Kyi and all prisoners of conscience to be released.

And, finally, I urge the Senate to renew the sanctions on Burma for another year.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Child Custody Protection Act, which imposes criminal penalties on those who help transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion if she does not first meet the parental involvement requirements of her home State.

My primary concern with this legislation is that it unnecessarily puts minors' health and well-being in danger. In addition, the language is so broadly written that it has the effect of harshly punishing those adult family members and loved ones who try to help a young woman in a time of need.

In addition to criminalizing the actions intended to assist a young woman with a difficult decision, this bill would create a new civil action where parents can file a lawsuit against the individual assisting the minor this means relatives, teachers, other trusted adults as well as potentially the doctor, nurse or clinic staff all could face civil court action.

As a mother and a grandmother, I would argue that, in a perfect world, young women and their parents should communicate openly about all major decisions, including whether to terminate a pregnancy. And, in fact, many young women do involve a parent in these decisions. However, the reality is that not all young women live in a household where they can turn to their parents. Some young women face physical, sexual or emotional abuse from their parents; some families do not have open, supporting relationships. For these young women, they may be more comfortable confiding in an older sister, aunt, or a grandparent. Yet this bill would turn these trusted relatives into criminals if they helped her seek an abortion. An unplanned pregnancy is upsetting at any age, and this legislation would deprive young women of support when they most need it.

First and foremost, this bill flies in the face of accepted legal precedent. While it reflects a great deal of concern for potential harms and the violation of parents' rights, it ignores the legal rights of young women to choose safe medical care that protects their health.

The legislation lacks an essential, constitutionally required exception in cases where the restriction it places on the ability of a young woman to get an abortion endangers her health. I am very concerned that once again language is being proposed that would omit this essential protection for women and girls.

The bill provides some limited exceptions to its criminal and civil liability by allowing a sister, aunt, grandmother, or friend to help a girl cross a State border to get an abortion if her life was in danger. But it does not protect actions taken if her health was in danger.

First of all, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that there must be protection for both the life and health of the mother.

The Supreme Court has ruled time and again from Doe v. Bolton, 1973, to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, to Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000, that any law restricting access to abortion must contain an exception to protect a woman's health.

Most recently, three Federal courts in California, New York, and Nebraska declared the partial birth abortion ban, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2003, unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement.

All three courts concluded that the law was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a woman's health.

This measure before the Senate today ignores these precedents and demonstrates a complete disregard for the health of young women.

Secondly, in addition to being unconstitutional, this is bad public policy. If a girl turns to her sister to ask for help because she is having complications with a hidden pregnancy how are either of them going to know whether the complication is life threatening or not? Do we really want to create a situation where a girl's sister, aunt, grandmother or friend has to step into the shoes of a doctor and determine whether complications with a pregnancy are life threatening or face criminal and civil charges for helping her? This could occur even if the girl wants to continue her pregnancy but because of health complications cannot.

Does Congress really want to say it is the best public policy to have young women and girls who are in traumatic situations not get medical assistance because it could result in an abortion for a non-life- threatening complication?

Let's be clear, that is the impact of this legislation. I believe it is unconstitutional and bad public policy. A pregnant minor who feels she cannot confide in a parent is already left with few options.

She can seek a judicial bypass. But few young women have the tools to navigate our complex legal system. The legal system is very difficult for the average adult to manage let alone a minor in an extremely difficult and vulnerable position. In addition, the legal system has demands that further restrict a girl's access; for instance, court hours are usually 9 to 5, requiring a young woman to miss school in order to appear in court. And many girls are reluctant to discuss such a personal decision that could involve traumatic experiences with a judge.

She may delay her decision. However, an abortion that occurs later in her pregnancy will be more dangerous and complicated than one that occurs in

the early stages of her pregnancy. She may opt to travel out of State, alone, undergoing a medical procedure with no family or friends there to support her.

She may seek a dangerous and illegal abortion. A pregnant minor who cannot safely tell a parent about her situation faces enough obstacles. We do not need to criminalize well-intentioned assistance provided to her.

I am also concerned that it is not only the young women making a deliberate choice not to tell a parent of an abortion who would suffer under this bill. Access to abortion is declining in this country, for women of all ages. Eighty-seven percent of counties no longer have a doctor who will perform an abortion. For many women, the most convenient provider is across State lines.

An older sister or aunt accompanying a minor to the nearest provider may unwittingly become a criminal. Even if neither woman intended to evade parental consent laws, this act of family support would be criminalized. A grandmother or sister could have no idea that she is violating a Federal law when she helps a family member access legal medical care.

But proponents of this legislation would like you to believe that this debate is not about young women who can no longer find a doctor who will provide full services in their home State. To them, this is not about the young women who, for whatever reason, need to look beyond a parent for adult support.

While supporters of this bill are correctly horrified by stories of girls kidnapped by older boyfriends and forced into having abortions they did not want, this legislation does not create a limited solution to fix that problem. In fact, in many cases the actions in these circumstances are already illegal. Laws prohibit kidnapping. Laws prohibit statutory rape. Medical ethics require that physicians obtain informed consent from the patient before performing any medical procedure. People who violate these laws can already be prosecuted. I welcome a debate on policies that will crack down further on sexual predators who abuse young women.

If there is a problem that current laws are not being enforced, then let's address that; if there is a problem that these laws are not strong enough, then let's address that, but let's not criminalize behavior of a loving family member, friend, or confidant who is trying to help a young girl in a traumatic time in her life.

This bill is not about protecting vulnerable young women from crime. It is about limiting their access to a constitutionally protected medical procedure. This legislation does reflect a great deal of concern for potential harms and the violation of rights--of parents.

Under this proposal, a parent has legal recourse if his or her supposed ``right'' to stop their daughter's abortion is violated. Parents can sue to collect damages.

This bill, in fact, could create a situation in which a mother sues a grandmother for helping her granddaughter exercise her right to choose. Yet it leaves a young woman with no recourse for the violation of their right to seek and receive safe medical care of her choice.

This legislation also runs counter to basic notions of federalism, linking a young woman to the law of her home State no matter where she may be living. No other State laws follow her to college or summer camp.

In this country, State laws do not extend beyond State borders. When residents from my home State of California travel to Nevada for vacations, they are allowed to play the slot machines, even though gambling is illegal at home. There is no reason why laws should reach across State lines to restrict access to a safe and legal medical procedure.

I wish this were a perfect world. I wish we could legislate that every child has a loving and stable parent to guide him or her through the trials of adolescence. I wish we could legislate that every family talk openly and honestly about the risks of sexual activity.

But we cannot. Parental consent laws do not create these idealized families. Instead, they further burden those that are already troubled. A young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy in an unstable situation must be able to turn to another trusted adult--without the fear of subjecting the adult to Federal criminal liability.

The very fact that we are having this debate is a clear demonstration of the leadership's misplaced priorities. They claim this is a women's health issue, a family values issue.

We have only a few legislative days remaining this year. There are so many other problems we should be addressing.

We should be debating ways to prevent these difficult situations from arising in the first place. We should be discussing policies that promote honest information about reproductive health and ready access to contraceptives. No teen should face an unplanned pregnancy. Those that do must not face it alone.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill that endangers young women's health and turns their relatives into criminals.

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

Mr. President, the right of a citizen to vote is the most basic right in any democracy. At the signing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 in this very Capitol Rotunda, the President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, said these words:

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by

man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible

walls which imprison men because they are different from

other men.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a critical breakthrough in the struggle for civil rights. However, the Voting Rights Act, which came the next year, 1965, is considered the most important and successful civil rights law of the 20th century, because it finally ensured every voting-age citizen of this Nation a voice in his or her own fate.

The passage of the 14th amendment in 1868 and the passage of the 15th amendment in 1870 both prohibited disenfranchisement on the basis of race. But in the absence of legislative protection for the right to vote, that right was systematically denied to millions of African Americans for nearly a century. Similarly, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Alaskan Natives were excluded from the ballot box through an assortment of voting tests and intimidation.

We are all here today because of the courage and persistence of the civil rights leaders of the last century, who fought so long and hard to attain the franchise the Constitution had already granted them.

Several of these heroes are memorialized in the title of this bill: Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Cesar Chavez. All of us owe them a debt of gratitude.

On this day, I am also mindful of the contributions Californians have made in the civil rights battles. Let me share one story.

On June 10, 1964, the Civil Rights Act was being filibustered on this very floor. No filibuster of a civil rights bill in the 20th century had ever been broken. Senator Claire Engle of California, who held the seat I now occupy, was suffering at the time from terminal brain cancer. He was wheeled in dramatic fashion into this Chamber. He was too sick to speak, but he indicated his ``aye'' vote for cloture by gesturing toward his eyes. His vote proved to be the decisive 67th vote that overcame the filibuster and ultimately led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Senator Engle died later that year. However, the filibuster was no longer an impassable barrier to civil rights legislation, and the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the following year. I thank my predecessor and I pay him tribute.

In the last 50 years, California has often been ahead of the curve in guaranteeing voting rights. In 1961, California prohibited election day challenges based on literacy.

In 1971, California required that a copy of the election ballot in Spanish be posted in each polling place, where the language minority population was greater than 3 percent.

In 1973, California passed a law allowing the use of languages besides English in polling places and required county clerks to recruit bilingual deputy registrars and precinct board members.

In 1975, California allowed voters to register to vote by mail.

In 2001, California passed the California Voting Rights Act--the first State voting rights act in the Nation--to combat racial bloc voting.

Unfortunately, however, the end of the 20th century did not mark the end of efforts to disenfranchise minority voters in my State and the Nation. Nevertheless, several provisions of the Voting Rights Act will expire in August of 2007 if we don't take this action today.

Two of the provisions set to expire are particularly significant. The first is section 5, which requires jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to clear any changes in voting procedures with the Department of Justice before instituting any change.

The second is section 203, which requires language assistance for bilingual voters in jurisdictions with a large number of citizens for whom English is a second language.

The section 5 so-called ``preclearance'' provision is critically important. I guess this is the section that has drawn the most comment on this reauthorization. It is important because it stops attempts to disenfranchise voters before they can start, not after they start.

In the last decade, the Department of Justice has repeatedly struck down proposed changes to voting procedures under section 5 preclearance. This section has prevented the redrawing of municipal boundaries designed specifically to disenfranchise minority voters, blocked attempts to exclude minority candidates from the ballot, denied efforts to change methods of elections intended to dilute minority voting strength, kept polling places from being moved to locations that would have reduced minority voter turnout, and it has thrown out redistricting proposals that would have marginalized minority voters. Clearly, this section has served us well.

In California, the rejection of a discriminatory redistricting plan in Monterey County under section 5 led to the first election of a Latino to the Monterey County Boards of Supervisors in more than 100 years.

The most significant impact of section 5, I believe, is not from its enforcement mechanism but from its deterrent effect. Just as the presence of police deters more crime than is stopped by actual police intervention, it is likely that the threat of Government action prevents far more attempts to disenfranchise voters than the Department of Justice's review actually does.

Let me speak about section 203. Its requirement of language assistance in jurisdictions with a large number of citizens for whom English is a second language has enabled citizens to vote who otherwise, frankly, could not have.

For example, a study found that in the 1990 general election, bilingual assistance was used by 18 percent of Latino voters in the State of California.

Los Angeles is the largest and most diverse local election jurisdiction in our country. It provides assistance under the Voting Rights Act to voters in six languages other than English.

According to a November 2000 exit survey of language minority voters in Los Angeles and Orange County in California, 54 percent of Asian- American voters and 46 percent of Latino voters reported that language assistance made them more likely to vote. That is actual documentation.

In a hearing before the Judiciary Committee on the impact of section 203, Deborah Wright, acting assistant registrar and county clerk for Los Angeles County, testified that written translations are provided in Los Angeles County because of the complex nature of issues facing the voters in our State. I can tell you that California ballots are among the longest and most complicated in our Nation. She explained to our committee that California often presents voters with numerous, complex ballot initiatives and propositions. Such complicated ballots challenge all voters to be prepared and to have the information they need prior to casting their ballots.

Often, a high level of English proficiency is needed even by native speakers of English to understand these ballot initiatives and to cast an informed ballot. I myself have trouble sometimes understanding the propositions. I believe the California experience is persuasive that appropriate targeted language assistance makes it much more likely that informed voters vote, and that is important.

My mother was an immigrant from Russia. She came here when she was a small child. She had only a primary school education. Her family was very poor. Her parents never spoke English. She studied English and, as an adult, passed the language exam and became a naturalized citizen. Still, when it came time to vote, I helped her with her ballot. We would go over the propositions, I would read them in English, we would discuss them, otherwise she could never fully understand them because they were complicated and filled with legalese.

As I said, California's ballots can be long, and despite ballot simplification, which is now a part of the California ballot, they can still be very confusing. Section 203 enables the full comprehension of a ballot, and I believe that is very important.

We are reauthorizing this bill today. I don't believe we can permit these provisions to expire and leave the next generation of Americans without full protection of their voting rights. That is why I am very proud to be a cosponsor of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.

This legislation will reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years so that it can continue to be a kind of deterrent to any chicanery, any manipulation, anyone's ill intent to prevent any group of voters from exercising their right to the franchise under the Constitution of the United States.

Under the guidance of Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy over the last 2 months, our committee, the Judiciary Committee, has held 10 hearings on reauthorizing this act--10 hearings. As a matter of fact, I can't remember any reauthorization in the 14 years I have been on the committee that has had 10 separate hearings. The exhaustive testimony from these hearings has confirmed both that these expiring provisions are still needed and that these provisions are constitutional.

In response to this record, yesterday the Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. I was also pleased to see the House pass the reauthorization last week with broad, bipartisan support. Today, this full Senate now has the opportunity to offer its own resounding endorsement of this very important bill.

Thomas Paine wrote over 200 years ago that:

The right of voting for representatives is the primary

right by which other rights are protected.

I couldn't agree more. Today will be a historic occasion as we reauthorize this important bill for another 25 years. I am very proud to play a small role as a member of the Judiciary Committee in this vote.

I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the students of Glendale High School on becoming the U.S. representative at the Junior G8 Summit.

For the first time in 30 years, the annual G8 Summit will include an official exchange between children aged 13 to 17 and G8 leaders. Glendale High School beat out 14 other schools for this once-in-a- lifetime chance to represent the United States at the Summit.

The Junior 8 Youth Forum will provide the participants from all over the world a platform from which they can express their opinions on issues such as infectious diseases, violence, corruption, education, energy, and security. The U.S. team and their international counterparts will meet in order to draft a communique which eight of them will present to the G8 leaders.

These students could not have achieved this memorable accomplishment without tremendous support and encouragement from their dedicated teachers and parents.

I would also recognize team members Shaunt Attarian, Rigo Benitez, Edgar Hernandez, Sergio Maciel, Viannca Montesino, Elaine Panlaqui, Diana Perez, and Kelly Velasquez for their poise and determination in working towards receiving this honor.

All eight team members have spent time and energy for over 6 months preparing to represent the United States with respect and intelligence at this prestigious event. The Glendale High School Junior G8 team should be commended for their efforts and stand as an inspiration to us all.

Once again, I would like to honor the entire Glendale High School Junior G8 Team on a well-deserved victory. Each of these students holds wonderful promise, and I applaud them for their many achievements. Their futures are bright, and their performance will continue to serve as a model for those who follow in their footsteps.