Floor Statements

Mr. President, as has been said, more than 2,500 brave men and women of America's fighting forces have now been killed in Iraq. Another 18,500 have been wounded. The victims of this violence include two American soldiers captured in an ambush at a checkpoint south of Baghdad who were brutally tortured, killed, and left surrounded by roadside bombs. I join with all of my colleagues in offering our deepest sympathies.

Yet with American troops now caught in the middle of raging sectarian violence, it is all too likely that such heinous acts will go on and on. This war, originally projected to last but a few months, has gone on for 39 months with no end in sight.

Our Nation is spending $2.5 billion a week on the conflict, and the violence has worsened.

Iraqis have suffered greatly. More than 30,000 civilians have been killed, including 4,000 in the past 3 months alone. And another 90,000 Iraqis have had to flee their homes and their country to avoid the bloodshed.

In the past 5 days alone, according to news reports, nearly 100 civilians have been murdered in car bombings, shootings and other attacks, despite a new security crackdown by Iraqi and American forces.

For example, on Friday, 16 people were killed and 28 wounded when a shoe bomber blew himself up inside the Buratha mosque during religious services.

Saturday, one of the bloodiest days yet in recent months, over 40 civilians died in a series of car bombs and mortar attacks around Baghdad.

Day after day and month after month, we see that an open-ended commitment of United States forces neither controls nor abates the insurgency but, rather, it appears to inflame it.

What is becoming very apparent is that the murderous conflicts that bloody Baghdad and other cities daily can only be reduced by Iraqis-- Iraqis who are willing and able to come together and stop this brutal and ruthless violence.

So I rise today to say that the time has come for the United States to recognize that United States troops cannot abate this kind of sectarian violence; only Iraqis can.

Late last year, Congress approved and President Bush signed into law an amendment that was in this very Defense authorization bill. That amendment pointed out that:

Calendar year 2006--

That this year--

should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi

sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for

the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating

the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States

forces from Iraq.

Mr. President, 79 Senators from both sides of the aisle voted for this amendment, and I believe the amendment presented today that we are debating right now is the right way to follow up on this earlier Senate initiative. It is not cut-and-run by any stretch of the imagination.

When President Bush staged his brief visit to Baghdad last week, he told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that he came to look him ``in the eye.'' Now it is time for the President of the United States to look the American people in the eye.

As a nation, we have had enough repetition of slogans and reassurances that have become increasingly hollow in the continuing blast of roadside bombs and the rattle of automatic gunfire. No longer will ``we stand down when they stand up'' suffice for policy. No, Mr. President, we want you to recognize this.

Three years ago, the United States may have been misguided into war in Iraq, but now most certainly the country must not be misguided about the realities in Iraq today and the need to change our mission.

What is victory in a land torn by its own warring factions? Is it quite possibly allowing Iraqis to solve Iraqi problems and to remove the shibboleth of an ongoing occupying army making decisions that should be left to Iraqis?

Despite what may have been said these past few days, our amendment is not about cutting and running. Rather,

our amendment acknowledges that staying the course is a strategy that shows no promise of success, and it is time to change that strategy.

There remains a thunderstorm of conflicting forces over much of Iraq. Questing for dominance are al-Qaida, nationalistic Baathists left over from the days of Saddam's tyranny, and an array of rival religious armies.

The battle lines are as uncertain and diverse as are the competing objectives of the various combatants. True, there have been some other positive developments. Iraq finally put a constitutional government in place last month, 5 months after the December 15 election.

After extensive deliberation and debate, the Iraqi Government is finally functioning, but much work remains to be done by the Iraqi people and their elected leaders, for only they can ultimately defeat the forces that have left the Iraqi nation on the brink of civil war. There are now over 260,000 Iraqi military and police personnel who have been trained and equipped, well over three-quarters of the way to reaching the Pentagon's stated goal of establishing an Iraqi force of 325,000 troops. Of the 102 operational Iraqi Army combat battalions, 69 are either in the lead or operating independently. That is over 60,000 soldiers.

Now that Iraqis have assumed the reins of control, it is critical that the United States not be caught in the middle of the ongoing carnage, sectarian violence, and civil strife.

I believe strongly that our mission in Iraq needs to change--train police and military, provide necessary infrastructure assistance, advise when asked--but now that the entire Iraqi leadership is in place, it is time for the phased redeployment promised last year in this bill to begin.

Our amendment calls on the administration to prepare and present to Congress and the American people by the end of this year a plan outlining the steps needed to proceed with the redeployment of our troops, either back to the United States or to other critical areas of potential terrorist conflict around the globe.

This amendment would place the Senate on record asking that the President expedite the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a limited presence and confine the mission to training and providing logistical support to Iraqi security forces.

We request the President to begin the phased redeployment of forces this year. It would ask that the President submit a plan to the Congress by the end of 2006 with estimated--estimated--days for the continued phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Is this too much to ask 3 years and 3 months into the most costly conflict the United States has yet entered into?

It would also ask the President to convene an international conference to bring together the international community to discuss and implement a strategy to assisting Iraq's development and infrastructure.

This amendment also calls on the Iraqi Government to, one, achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement within its own groups of people; two, share political power and economic resources among all Iraqi groups; three, develop a unifying constitution; and, four, disarm the militias and remove members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the new government is in doubt.

Moreover, and most importantly, it is increasingly clear that the Iraqis themselves wish to see a structured downsizing of American troops in their country. Why don't we listen?

Senator Clinton eloquently pointed this out, and it bears repeating. The new Iraqi National Security Adviser first said a week ago, and then more recently in a Washington Post op-ed just yesterday, that the Iraqi Government hopes that by year's end, United States troop levels will be under 100,000, and that most of the remaining troops will return home by the end of 2007.

We don't make accusations of the Iraqi National Security Adviser. I have a hard time understanding why the opposite side makes accusations of us when we simply say we agree with the Iraqis, whose business it is to know this, chart this, advise this, and carry this out.

He states unequivocally that Iraq's ambition is to have full control of his country by the end of 2008. He says: The removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see our troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be.

Members, this is the Iraqi National Security Adviser saying that the Iraqi people now see our troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were once meant to be. This is a point worthy of serious consideration by this body.

Al-Rubaie goes on to suggest that such a drawdown: ``Will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people'' and ``strengthen it to last the full 4 years it is supposed to.'' A drawdown, he says, will legitimize Iraq's Government in the eyes of its people and strengthen it to last the 4 years it is supposed to. Why don't we listen?

And he concludes yesterday's op-ed by stating--and I find this eloquent:

Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and

the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions,

learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to

Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and

allies are standing by with support and help should we need

it.

This is exactly what this legislation would do. If the Iraqi National Security Adviser is willing to put forward goals and timetables for the downsizing of the American troop presence in Iraq, why shouldn't the President of the United States?

I hope this body will join together in a bipartisan fashion, as we did last year, and call for the redeployment and transition of the United States mission in Iraq beginning this year. Three years and 3 months. This hasn't been 30 days, it hasn't been 60 days or 90 days. It has been 3 years and 3 months with ``stay the course,'' and things get worse and worse. Now we have the National Security Adviser in Iraq saying essentially exactly what the amendment before us today says. Are we going to listen to him or do we think we know better?

I believe this is the right thing to do for our troops who have sacrificed so much. It is the right thing to do for their families who wait anxiously for them to return home. It is the right thing to do for the overwhelming majority of the American people who have stated clearly their desire for a change of course in Iraq.

I believe it is the right thing to do for the Iraqi people. They are prepared to stand up. They are prepared to handle their own destiny. I believe Iraq should be for Iraqis.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I respond to that?

I would respond just for a brief moment. I believe the total cost of World War II was $210 billion in real dollars. The cost thus far of just Iraq has been $320 billion; and if we include Afghanistan, my understanding is it is about $370 billion. So I did not mean it in terms of lives lost; I meant it in terms of dollars spent.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Boxer and Bingaman in introducing an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act concerning the Park Service's management of Santa Rosa Island within the Channel Islands National Park.

I remain deeply concerned about a provision in the House version of the Defense authorization bill regarding the future use of Santa Rosa Island.

Under a binding court settlement, non-native deer and elk must be removed from the island by 2011. The House language would prohibit the Park Service from eliminating this non-native herd by providing for a 4-year period of intensive hunting beginning in 2008.

The Park Service is firmly opposed to the House provision. Nor, to my understanding, did the Department of Defense ask for the language.

I am particularly concerned that the House provision would waste taxpayer dollars and deny public access.

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

In addition to the $30 million, the previous owners agreed to what would seem to be a fair deal: they were permitted to keep hunting and grazing on the land through 2011. A court settlement in the late 1990s removed the cattle immediately but reaffirmed that the non-native deer and elk would have to be removed by 2011.

Now, under the House provision, the prior owners will be able to continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting trips. Even though the Government purchased the island from them for $30 million in taxpayer money, they would get to keep essentially everything they had before and that is simply not in the public interest.

As I said earlier, I strongly oppose the loss of public access to the island. This is the public's land. It is a national park, and the public should be able to visit it.

But these privately operated hunting trips require the closure of 90 percent of the island to the public for 4 to 5 months of the year, even sometimes during peak season.

Now while the House language doesn't specifically say this, I understand one of its purposes was to provide hunting opportunities for disabled veterans. Yet it should be pointed out that in California today, there are already nine military installations that permit hunting five that can accommodate disabled service members.

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

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

Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general public.

It is simply unfair to the taxpayers to allow a provision in the House version of the Defense authorization bill to impede on the public's right to access the island.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Theo Farge be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the Levin amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Snowe, Durbin, Chafee, Inouye, Collins, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Boxer, Lautenberg, Menendez, and Lieberman to introduce a bill to increase CAFE standards by 10 miles in 10 years.

This is a commonsense, bipartisan approach to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, and save consumers at the pump.

We have the technology available today to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles. We just need the political will--which is why we are here today.

Specifically, our bill would raise the average fuel economy of all cars and SUVs to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2017.

This would save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2025. That is the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf.

This bill would also save consumers dollars at the pump. At $3 per gallon, Americans driving 15,000 miles per year are, on average, using 600 gallons of gasoline and spending $1,800 per year on gas.

By raising CAFE standards to 35 miles per gallon, consumers would only use 429 gallons of gas per year, costing $1,287 per year for gas. That is a savings of $513 per year at the pump.

Assuming the consumer keeps the vehicle for at least 5 years, that is a savings of more than $2,500--more than enough to recoup the cost of more efficient vehicles.

Raising CAFE standards is also good for the environment. The two largest culprits of climate change are coal-fired powerplants and automobiles. Coal powerplants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide--producing 2.5 billion tons every year. But the automobile isn't very far behind--producing nearly 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. In fact, every gallon of gasoline burned emits 20 pounds of harmful CO2 into the atmosphere. That means that each car is responsible for about 12,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions every year. This legislation would take a good first step at reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

By 2025, an average fuel economy standard of 35mpg would eliminate 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions--the equivalent of taking 90 million cars--or 75 million cars and light trucks--off the road in 1 year.

Our daily driving habits are costing consumers at the pump, threatening our national security, and potentially causing irrevocable harm to our environment. We have the technology available today to make significant increases in fuel economy standards. In fact, David Greene of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a leading expert on fuel economy, says that a 35 mpg standard by model year 2017 is cost effective and can be achieved without reducing the size, weight, or horsepower of vehicles. And 78 percent of U.S. drivers have said they are willing to pay for better fuel economy.

The longer we delay, the harder it will be to kick our addiction to oil. We must act today.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances the innocent spouse equitable relief provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Through only minor legislative modifications, this bill clarifies the statute's original intent, affording innocent spouses the necessary recourse to ensure their cases and circumstances are given a fair hearing.

According to section 6015(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS may relieve an innocent spouse of liability for unpaid taxes generated through the filing of a joint tax return if ``taking into account all the facts and circumstances'' it would be inequitable to hold the spouse responsible.

Little recourse exists, however, to prevent the IRS from seizing assets or garnishing wages if a petition for innocent spouse equitable relief is not approved.

Recent decisions of the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have denied the Tax Court jurisdiction over petitions for equitable relief under the Innocent Spouse Statute. Consequently, there is no mechanism for review or appeal of these IRS decisions.

The story of one of my constituents provides a stunning example of the problem.

The IRS seized all of her husband's income to pay a tax liability incurred 20 years earlier, before they were married. Because the IRS seized the entirety of the income, the taxes on the income remained unpaid.

When her husband died, the IRS pursued the innocent spouse for the taxes

on her husband's income. She was forced to sell her family home and all property owned jointly with her husband. My constituent is employed, but due to financial hardship she must live with friends. Even so, the IRS may have her wages garnished along with funds set aside for her in trust by a probate court.

Because the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to review claims for innocent spouse equitable relief, my constituent can do little to prevent the IRS from seizing what remains.

The aim of this legislation is to provide an avenue through which innocent spouse equitable relief decisions may be appealed, if originally denied by the IRS.

This bill: expressly provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of equitable innocent spouse relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f); and suspends IRS collection activity while a request for relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f) is pending.

I believe that my proposal would provide a straightforward and uncontroversial solution to the unfair treatment of innocent spouses under current law. Moreover, without this bill, an increasing number of innocent spouse equitable relief appeals will remain in limbo--pending, with no method for consideration.

When this body enhanced innocent spouse protections--through passage of the 1998 Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act--the goal was to modernize, simplify, and streamline the cumbersome process of seeking relief from liabilities of tax, interest, and related penalties.

Unfortunately, the conference report on the 1998 act included vague language, which ultimately has left innocent spouses with no avenue for appeal.

It is worth noting that the IRS grants fewer than three in 10 requests for innocent spouse relief. This bill in no way guarantees relief, but rather fixes the broken appeals process for these IRS decisions.

I urge my colleagues to support this small change that will have a profound effect on the lives of many innocent spouses--mostly women-- who deserve their day in court.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances the innocent spouse equitable relief provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Through only minor legislative modifications, this bill clarifies the statute's original intent, affording innocent spouses the necessary recourse to ensure their cases and circumstances are given a fair hearing.

According to section 6015(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS may relieve an innocent spouse of liability for unpaid taxes generated through the filing of a joint tax return if ``taking into account all the facts and circumstances'' it would be inequitable to hold the spouse responsible.

Little recourse exists, however, to prevent the IRS from seizing assets or garnishing wages if a petition for innocent spouse equitable relief is not approved.

Recent decisions of the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have denied the Tax Court jurisdiction over petitions for equitable relief under the Innocent Spouse Statute. Consequently, there is no mechanism for review or appeal of these IRS decisions.

The story of one of my constituents provides a stunning example of the problem.

The IRS seized all of her husband's income to pay a tax liability incurred 20 years earlier, before they were married. Because the IRS seized the entirety of the income, the taxes on the income remained unpaid.

When her husband died, the IRS pursued the innocent spouse for the taxes

on her husband's income. She was forced to sell her family home and all property owned jointly with her husband. My constituent is employed, but due to financial hardship she must live with friends. Even so, the IRS may have her wages garnished along with funds set aside for her in trust by a probate court.

Because the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to review claims for innocent spouse equitable relief, my constituent can do little to prevent the IRS from seizing what remains.

The aim of this legislation is to provide an avenue through which innocent spouse equitable relief decisions may be appealed, if originally denied by the IRS.

This bill: expressly provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of equitable innocent spouse relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f); and suspends IRS collection activity while a request for relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f) is pending.

I believe that my proposal would provide a straightforward and uncontroversial solution to the unfair treatment of innocent spouses under current law. Moreover, without this bill, an increasing number of innocent spouse equitable relief appeals will remain in limbo--pending, with no method for consideration.

When this body enhanced innocent spouse protections--through passage of the 1998 Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act--the goal was to modernize, simplify, and streamline the cumbersome process of seeking relief from liabilities of tax, interest, and related penalties.

Unfortunately, the conference report on the 1998 act included vague language, which ultimately has left innocent spouses with no avenue for appeal.

It is worth noting that the IRS grants fewer than three in 10 requests for innocent spouse relief. This bill in no way guarantees relief, but rather fixes the broken appeals process for these IRS decisions.

I urge my colleagues to support this small change that will have a profound effect on the lives of many innocent spouses--mostly women-- who deserve their day in court.

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

Mr. President, I wish to offer my sincere congratulations, commendation, and gratitude to Ms. Jean Picker Firstenberg, who announced last week that she will be stepping down as chief executive officer of the American Film Institute after 26 years of dedicated and exceptional leadership.

During a tenure lasting nearly three decades, Jean's vision and leadership has placed AFI at the forefront of national recognition with respect to the history of film in this country. Her efforts dramatically widened the scope and magnitude of AFI's activities, and she has proven instrumental in moving the organization through times of tremendous change at AFI and in the film world as well.

Founded in 1967, AFI was established to educate the next generation of American filmmakers and preserve the Nation's film heritage. Jean not only fulfilled this vital need but worked to greatly expand AFI's mission. Thanks to her efforts, AFI now stands as the largest nonprofit film exhibitor in the country, represents a preeminent voice celebrating excellence in American film and television, and has proudly championed new film and television media.

Perhaps Jean's greatest challenge came when the National Endowment for the Arts funding which had been AFI's primary source of financial support since the organization's inception disappeared virtually over night. But thanks to Jean's firm dedication to our Nation's film heritage and her boundless energy, she transformed AFI into the self- sufficient entrepreneurial organization it is today with a strong and diverse financial foundation.

Beyond placing AFI on firm financial grounding, Jean's tenure has also seen myriad accomplishments that will forever cement her legacy at AFI and in the film and television world. Under her direction, AFI acquired the beautiful campus in Los Angeles it calls home, greatly expanded its educational opportunities, and opened the Silver Theater and Cultural Center in nearby Silver Spring, MD.

Jean Firstenberg is an American treasure, and her presence as head of AFI will be sorely missed. It is truly a pleasure to honor and thank her for all she has done for film in America, and I am deeply proud to call her my friend. She plans to spend more time now traveling and writing, but she will always be the strongest of advocates for America's rich artistic heritage.

Madam President, I rise to oppose this bill. With an $8.4 trillion national debt, a budget deficit that will exceed $300 billion this year, a looming entitlement crisis, and a mounting alternative minimum tax problem, full repeal of the estate tax at this time is simply not responsible.

We have until 2010 to make decisions about the estate tax. In doing so, time will afford us the opportunity to make more informed choices, with a more complete picture of our Nation's fiscal health.

We are talking about eliminating nearly $1 trillion in Federal revenues here, during a time of war.

Now is not the time to place the interests of a small number of millionaires ahead of millions of working families.

The estate tax is already being gradually phased down under current law. By 2009, only estates valued at more than $7 million per couple-- $3.5 million per individual--will owe any estate tax at all. This means that only 3 of every 1,000 people who die would have an estate large enough to owe any Federal estate taxes.

Permanently eliminating the estate tax would cost $402 billion over the

next 10 years, 2007 to 2016, though it is important to note that this figure only captures the cost of 5 years of full repeal, from 2011 to 2016.

When all costs are included, nearly a trillion dollars will be lost in the first decade following repeal, from 2012 to 2021. Included in this staggering figure is $213 billion in increased interest payments on the national debt.

Federal revenues are already insufficient to fund our Nation's most critical domestic priorities.

I wish things were different, allowing a vote in support of reforming the estate tax to be cast today in good conscience.

Let me be clear. I am no fan of the estate tax. I understand how hard families work to provide opportunities and a better future for their children. Transferring assets from generation to generation motivates families to work even harder. It is unfair to place unreasonable burdens on small businesses and families seeking to provide for future generations.

I am deeply concerned about California's families who own farms and small businesses. Like many of my colleagues, I worry that they may be forced to sell a primary residence just to pay the estate tax. Our laws should not create even more hardship at a time when someone has lost a loved one.

Yet, as we consider estate tax repeal today, our Nation's fiscal outlook and the potential impact of this administration's policies are uncertain. This President has broken with his predecessors by submitting only 5-year budgets.

Why, you might ask? Especially after we were presented with the traditional 10-year numbers during this President's first year in office. The answer is that these tax cuts explode the debt and deficit in the outyears--the end of the 10-year window.

The President's tax cuts have already cost more than $1 trillion, and those enacted will be more than $3 trillion over the next decade.

Republicans just passed another round, with the lion's share once again going to the very wealthy--$50 billion to extend capital gains and dividends tax breaks over 10 years.

The Federal budget deficit will be at least $300 billion this year. The national debt is soaring. And we are at war. Never before have such expansive tax cuts been enacted or continued during a time of war.

Over the next 10 years, the debt is projected to reach nearly $12 trillion. In this year alone, our national debt is slated to increase by $654 billion. More startling is the fact that the national debt is currently more than 66 percent of our gross domestic product, GDP. The total debt equates to roughly $30,000 owed by every American citizen.

When you combine the cost of the tax cuts with spending for the war in Iraq--currently totaling $370 billion--the inevitable result is that the domestic programs that matter most are squeezed.

For example, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget makes significant cuts to programs such as food stamps, cut by $272 million; food assistance for seniors and children, cut by $111 million; COPS, which put over 118,000 police on the streets nationwide, is being cut by more than $407 million, or 15,000 officers nationwide; first responders--within Department of Homeland Security--by $573 million or 25 percent; firefighters--firefighter grant program, within Department of Homeland Security--by $355 million; Job Corps--an education and job training program for youth--by $55 million, resulting in 1,000 fewer at-risk youth being served; mass transit, by $100 million; safe and drug-free schools State grants, by $346 million; and education--the President's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, would be underfunded this year by more than $15 billion and $55.7 billion since it was enacted.

Let me explain. Most of the money the Federal Government outlays in a given year is currently not controllable. It is spent on what are called entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits. If you are entitled to these benefits, you get them.

And if you add interest on the debt--nearly $400 billion in 2006-- that is about 60 percent of everything spent in a given year. So that leaves 40 percent, half of which is the defense budget and half is everything else.

There is a war going on, so it is very difficult to cut defense spending.

So while a select few are benefiting from massive tax breaks, budget cuts must be made--to the programs many Americans rely upon--to prevent uncontainable deficits.

There is a fundamental shift taking place. Republicans have become the profligate spenders, while Democrats have become the deficit hawks.

Americans deserve more responsible leadership. Leadership is about planning for the future and making the difficult decisions that ensure economic stability for our children and their grandchildren.

With the threatening fiscal demands of baby boomers retiring and the pending insolvency of Medicare in less than two decades, repealing the estate tax today would be inconceivably shortsighted.

I urge my colleagues to employ sensible leadership and understand the responsibilities we have to uphold. We have a responsibility to working families, veterans, senior citizens, children, and low-income communities.

No one will deny that this issue needs to be revisited in the coming years. We must adopt a balanced estate tax compromise, while holding the line on spending in order to restore a program of fiscal sanity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect small businesses and family farms, without unreasonably jeopardizing our Nation's financial well-being and our ability to help those who need Congress most.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to do what they know is right: encourage a more responsible fiscal course and stand in opposition to full repeal of the estate tax at this time. This is the wrong policy at the wrong time.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution. It is my fundamental belief that

the Constitution is not a document that denies rights. As a matter of fact, it is a document that protects those rights once earned.

With all the problems in the world today, the Senate is spending valuable time debating a bill which we know does not have the votes for cloture, which is divisive and which I believe does not belong on the national agenda.

The fact is, all family law has historically been relegated to the States; that is, marriage, divorce, adoption, custody, all aspects of family law and domestic relations have been the province of the States. That is what the Supreme Court has said in case after case from In Re Burrus in 1890 to Rose v. Rose in 1982. In that 1982 case, the court affirmed the holding of In Re Burrus that:

[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband

and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the

states, and not to the laws of the United States.

Similarly, in Sosna v. Illinois, in 1975 the Supreme Court wrote:

Domestic relations [is] an area that has long been regarded

as a virtually exclusive province of the States.

In 1982, then Associate Justice Rehnquist, dissenting in Santosky v. Kramer, wrote:

The area of domestic relations . . . has been left to the

States from time immemorial, and not without good reason.

And just this past November, in a television interview, Justice Stephen Breyer stated very simply:

Family law is State law.

It is clear domestic relations have been the jurisdiction of States. That is where they should remain.

I deeply believe this Senate should not be involved in putting amendments in the Constitution dealing with any aspect of marriage, of divorce, of families, of adoption, of any of those areas. The States reign supreme.

Why is it when Republicans are all for reducing the Federal Government's impact on people's lives, until it comes to the stinging litmus test issues--from gay marriage or end of life--they suddenly want the Federal Government to intervene?

For the life of me, I don't understand why this keeps coming before this Senate. It is extraordinarily difficult to pass a constitutional amendment. We all know that. Both Houses have to pass it by a two- thirds vote, and then over a 7-year period it goes out to the States where it has to be ratified by three-quarters of the States. The last constitutional amendment that went on to be ratified by the States was the Equal Rights Amendment, a simple 25-word amendment that said:

Equal rights under the law shall not be abridged based on

sex.

Guess what. They were not able to get the necessary three-quarters of the States over a 7-year period.

So I don't believe this constitutional amendment would be successful even if passed out of this Senate. I have not seen one passed in 13 years. It is extraordinarily difficult to get one ratified.

Family law is, indeed, the purview of the States, so there is no need for a constitutional amendment. This proposed constitutional amendment strikes at the heart of States rights in the area of family law and, in doing so, it actually undermines our Constitution. Moreover, I believe Americans believe the States should deal with same-sex marriage as the States see fit. And so do I.

Americans are especially concerned about amending this Constitution if it means closing the door on civil unions.

Why do I say this? How do I know this? Mr. President, 53 percent of Americans polled recently would oppose a constitutional amendment that also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships such as we have established in California. Many legal experts believe this amendment would do just that. The language in the second sentence of the amendment is ambiguous. It is ambiguous, at best, stating that:

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any

State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the

legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other

than the union of a man and a woman.

Now, some on the other side have argued that the amendment would still allow for legal unions passed by State legislatures, not just those instituted by the courts. However, when similar amendments were passed in States such as Michigan, Ohio, and Utah, domestic violence law and health care plans for couples, both gay and straight, were taken away. So we know it has an effect.

I believe to put this on the Constitution, if it were to prevail, if it were to be ratified by three-quarters of the States, it is very likely all domestic partnerships and domestic unions of any civil kind would be wiped out, as well. That does not make any sense at all.

States are well able to handle the issue of marriage on their own without the heavy hand of the Federal Government intervening in people's private lives.

What is currently happening in States indicates to me they are, in fact, actively engaged on this issue. The numbers speak for themselves. To date, 45 States have acted to restrict marriage to only one man and one woman; 18 of those have done so by amending their State constitutions. So why are we doing this?

This year, seven more states are poised to join them when they hold statewide votes on a constitutional same-sex marriage ban: Alabama in June, and Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin in November. In addition, at least nine other States may take up similar amendments in the not-so-distant future: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. In fact, only one State, Massachusetts, recognizes same- sex marriage. One State, that is it.

So why all the fuss? Why is the Senate devoting its time to this issue when one State has taken action? I say based on the laws of this land that is the prerogative of that State or any other State. So there is no need to be considering a Federal constitutional amendment, particularly when we have important global and national problems to address.

We have an enormous deficit in this country. We do not spend much time on it.

In Iraq, things are going from bad to worse. Just this morning we read about an unrelenting kidnapping campaign happening in the streets of Baghdad. Thousands of Iraqi citizens are being snatched from the streets, 56 just yesterday, all rounded up by gunmen dressed in Iraqi uniforms.

North Korea has announced it possesses nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to become a nuclear power. Stem cell research, passed by the House a year ago, still is not on the floor of the Senate.

Why, why, why, are we doing this now when we could be doing stem cell research, when we could possibly provide the hope for juvenile diabetes, for Alzheimer's victims, for cancer victims, for spinal cord severance victims?

As to appropriations, the Senate has not taken up and approved any of the 12 appropriations bills that it must complete by the end of the session, and it is already June.

I cannot understand why we are doing this. We have the defense authorization and intelligence authorization bills. These are critical bills at a time when our Nation continues to be fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war of terror, and we have not passed these bills.

Gas prices. When I was in Los Angeles last week, it cost more than $3.50 a gallon to fill up a tank of gas. We have not taken steps to deal with that.

There are dozens of critical issues, including the mandatory business of this Senate in 2 major authorization bills and 12 major appropriations bills that we have not addressed, and 45 States have taken action. Yet this Senate seems pressed to defend the Nation, to amend the Constitution, to provide something which is within the purview of the States and which the States are handling.

To me, it makes no sense other than this is an election year. It makes no sense other than throwing red meat to a certain constituency. It certainly is not what the Constitution of the United States is all about.

I hope we will vote no on cloture. I hope we will return to business that is important to the American people. I do not believe this issue merits the time of this Senate at this time.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of GEN Michael Hayden to be the next Director of the CIA.

I support his confirmation first because I think General Hayden's vision for the future of the CIA is right on point.

He has pledged to make the collection of human intelligence a top priority--a necessary move in understanding our Nation's enemies and the threats we face.

At the same time, General Hayden understands the failures of analysis prior to the Iraq war and is committed to making major changes.

Only time will tell, but I am hopeful that General Hayden has what it takes to put the agency on the right path after recent collection and analytic failures.

Secondly, I think General Hayden brings with him the overarching view of the entire intelligence community needed to carry out the vision and transition the CIA to deal with the new asymmetric threat posed by the terrorist world. I think this is critically important at this time.

General Hayden served 6 years as the Director of the National Security Agency, the largest intelligence agency in the intelligence community.

He ably led a transformation from a Cold War institution to a key component of our Nation's counterterrorism efforts.

Additionally, he served as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence under Ambassador Negroponte for the past year.

In this role, he oversaw the day-to-day operations of the Office of the DNI, and many of the DNI's accomplishments to date can be directly attributed to General Hayden's service.

Third, I am pleased that General Hayden made a commitment to me to appoint experienced intelligence professionals to serve on his direct staff and in senior positions across the agency.

I also support the administration's intention to name Stephen Kappes as the Deputy Director of the CIA.

Mr. Kappes brings a wealth of experience in the clandestine service to the agency's senior leadership.

Perhaps more importantly, his return to the agency has already gone a long way to assure operators that they are well represented in management and that their concerns will be met.

General Hayden will come to the agency at a time of major personnel problems.

But he has already taken steps to move the agency beyond the problems of the past and that is good news.

There is no question that the concerns that have been raised about General Hayden are legitimate and important.

Before my meeting with General Hayden and his appearance at the confirmation hearings, I was concerned that he will not be sufficiently independent of the Department of Defense. On this point, I have been reassured.

General Hayden has shown his independence in the past, and has committed that if he finds his uniform to be a hindrance in any way, he will ``take it off.''

Similarly, the Intelligence Committee will need to pay close attention to intelligence activities of the Department of Defense, especially in the area of human intelligence.

I have concerns that the Pentagon is going too far in this area, and I want to make sure that the CIA remains the leader and primary provider of this type of intelligence collection.

My greatest concern about General Hayden is that he was not more forthcoming in his answers during the open confirmation hearing.

Many members asked important questions on the NSA domestic surveillance program and on detention, interrogation and rendition policies.

In my view, the public deserved more forthcoming answers than those provided by General Hayden.

For example, I felt that General Hayden should have stated clearly, in full

public view, whether he believes that certain interrogation techniques constitute torture. He could say yes or no without disclosing sources and methods.

It is my hope that General Hayden will be more forthcoming once he is confirmed as Director of the CIA.

The challenge ahead of General Hayden is daunting, but it is absolutely critical to our nation's security that he succeed.

I believe General Hayden is the sound intelligence professional the CIA needs to regain its footing as the world's premier spy service and the hub of our nation's intelligence analysis and research and development capabilities.

I look forward to working with him to protect the American people.

Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce legislation with Senator Specter to reaffirm the exclusivity of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act of 1978, FISA, and streamline the process by which it works.

This measure brings the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program being conducted by the National Security Agency under the process required by FISA. The bill will enhance our national security and provide constitutional protections against government intrusion into the privacy of ordinary Americans.

Specifically, the bill that we introduce today would:

Restate, in no uncertain terms, that FISA is the exclusive means by which our Government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons on U.S. soil for foreign intelligence purposes;

Expressly state that there is no such thing as an ``implied'' repeal of our FISA laws. No future bill can be interpreted as authorizing an exception from FISA unless it expressly makes such exception;

Increase flexibility under FISA by extending the period of emergency electronic surveillance from 72 hours to 7 days, which should cover all contingent needs; and

Authorize designated supervisors at the NSA and the FBI to initiate emergency electronic surveillance, provided that the surveillance is reported to the Attorney General within 24 hours, and approved by the AG within 3 days and the FISA Court within 7 days. The purpose of this is to prevent bureaucratic delay in an emergency circumstance.

In addition to these major provisions, the legislation we introduce today makes several additional changes to reinforce FISA's exclusivity and adapt existing FISA authorities and procedures.

These changes are designed to allow applications to move faster from the field to the FISA Court, and to allow that Court to handle any increased caseload that will result from bringing the current NSA program into the FISA regime.

These additional authorities, streamlined procedures, and additional resources respond directly to needs described by the Attorney General, current and former FISA Court judges, and outside experts. Specifically, the bill:

Allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to approve applications going to the FISA Court to two other Senate-confirmed Justice Department officials;

Takes FISA's current allowance for 15 days of warrantless electronic surveillance following a declaration of war and extend it to the 15 days:

1. Following a Congressional authorization to use military force, or

2. A major terrorist attack against our nation for the same period of time.

Authorizes additional personnel at the NSA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the FISA Court, to reduce the time it takes to initiate, review, and file a FISA application.

Allows for additional judges to the FISA Court as needed to manage the caseload;

Facilitates a review of the FISA application process, culminating in a report designed to eliminate any unnecessary delay in the filings; and

Mandates the creation of a secure, classified document management system to facilitate electronic filing.

In addition to reaffirming FISA's exclusivity, as I mentioned before, the legislation:

Prohibits the use of Federal funds for any future electronic surveillance of U.S. Persons that does not fully comply with the law; and

Requires that the full Intelligence Committees be briefed on all electronic surveillance, and related, programs.

We are in a war against terrorists, who seek to attack us in unpredictable and asymmetric ways.

Intelligence is the key to our defense; we must know about the terrorists' intentions and capabilities to do us harm if we are to stop them.

Electronic surveillance, including surveillance conducted within the United States on U.S. persons, is part of our defense. The men and women at the NSA and the FBI who do this work are careful, dedicated officials.

But even in this war on terror, we should not sacrifice basic protections enshrined in the Constitution, including the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.

The FISA Court was created in 1978, following the Church Committee's investigation of some of our Government's worst civil rights violations--J. Edgar Hoover's spying on Martin Luther King, Jr., and Vietnam-era ``enemies lists,'' for example. These abuses were the result of domestic spying--electronic surveillance--under the guise of foreign intelligence.

In response, Congress, working with both the Ford and Carter administrations, drafted and later enacted FISA in 1978 to be the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons. It created a special court--operating in secret--that has to approve a warrant for every domestic wiretap, and provides for careful congressional oversight.

Over the years, this FISA court has rejected only a small handful of thousands of warrant requests, and has never had a significant leak. After the PATRIOT Act was passed in October 2001, for example, the Justice Department stated that FISA has worked efficiently and well.

In the past 28 years, technology has changed, as have our enemies. And from time to time, when requested by various administrations, we have made technical changes to FISA.

But the need to protect privacy rights by requiring individual warrants from a FISA judge, and the exclusivity of FISA, have remained constant.

The domestic electronic surveillance that has been conducted since October 2001 operates, for the most part, outside of the law. In addition, the way the administration has moved forward with this program has brought us to the brink of a constitutional confrontation.

The legislation that Senator Specter and I are introducing today brings the surveillance program under appropriate supervision and restores the checks and balances between the branches of government.

As one who has been briefed on the details of the NSA surveillance program, I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued individualized warrants for all content collection of U.S. persons under the FISA process.

Further, testimony and letters from the Attorney General, former Director of the NSA General Hayden, and other administration officials have provided no reason, other than that of timeliness, why the NSA program couldn't proceed under the FISA regime.

This legislation would help transform the FISA process into one agile enough to meet the administration's need for timely action, while also preserving judicial oversight and our important constitutional privacy protections.

In an April 6 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales openly suggested that warrants might have been obtainable for everything that the NSA is doing, and then testified that the main ``problem'' he saw with FISA was one of ``timing.''

After the Attorney General's testimony, I wrote to him asking him why these timing problems could not be addressed directly, so that we could return to the FISA process followed by all Presidents since Jimmy Carter.

The Justice Department's response does not provide a reason why FISA's timing problems are incapable of being fixed. All it demonstrates is that this administration is not interested in trying to fix them.

This bill addresses all of the concerns noted in the Attorney General's letter.

The primary concern raised was that current law requires the Attorney General to determine that FISA's factual predicates have been met before authorizing the surveillance to begin. In other words, he suggests that there is

important surveillance he might delay, or even avoid, if he must determine in advance that a court will grant approval. But this bill eliminates the requirement for Attorney General approval before surveillance begins.

Under this bill, if the circumstances warrant, an Attorney General- designated supervisor of the NSA or FBI can begin emergency surveillance immediately. The designated officer would have to notify the Attorney General's office within 24 hours of starting, and then get approval from the AG within 72 hours. The Department of Justice would then need to obtain an emergency warrant from the FISA court within 7 days of the initiation of surveillance.

The Attorney General's role would simply be to decide whether to stop the surveillance--not authorize it on the front end. And even on this decision to stop surveillance, the bill allows him to delegate that decision to two other Department of Justice officials. If the Court does not issue a warrant, the information cannot be used in any legal proceeding.

This provision is respectful of the administration's needs. The 7-day emergency window in this bill more than doubles the existing 3-day period that exists for emergencies now. It also extends substantial additional resources to the Department of Justice and the intelligence agencies. And as I say, our bill expressly authorizes a designated agent to go ahead with necessary surveillance right away.

The Attorney General's letter also asserts that FISA is unworkable because prompt action increases the chance that the target of surveillance may ultimately be notified if the FISA Court later turns down the warrant.

The risk here is no different than the risk every prior Administration has faced. And it is also infinitesimal, since only a small handful of FISA applications--only 4 out of 18,747 from 1979- 2005, according to press reports--have ever been refused by the FISA Court.

Even in the extremely rare case of where a FISA Court denies an emergency warrant, and therefore directs notification of the target of surveillance, the FISA law has a provision that exempts the Attorney General from notifying the target if he certifies that doing so would imperil national security.

Despite the remote chances of national security being compromised, the legislation gives the Attorney General the benefit of the doubt, and provides that if the Attorney General or his designees stops the NSA or FBI surveillance within 72 hours, the target of surveillance will not be notified.

Beyond the Attorney's General letter, the White House, the Department of Justice, and intelligence officials say that court review of the surveillance is not necessary for three reasons:

First, they argue that the President has the constitutional authority to order the surveillance, regardless of statutory prohibitions. This is a question for the courts to decide.

It is highly debatable whether the President has plenary article II constitutional power, but even if he does, he clearly does not have plenary authority to decide which of his powers are plenary. If he did, any Executive Branch official could open mail, or enter homes at any time without a warrant in the name of national security, and the doctrine of separation of powers as we know it would end.

Secondly, the administration argues that the NSA electronic surveillance program is subject to numerous reviews and safeguards at both the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency, thus making outside oversight unnecessary.

This argument flies in the face of our system of government. We have three separate branches of government, each with checks and balances on the other two. The framers of the Constitution did not vest the Executive Branch with the right to oversee itself; that is the responsibility of the Congress and the Courts.

We have also recently seen how this arrangement of internal reviews, even if it were acceptable, simply does not work. Within the Department of Justice, the Office of Professional Responsibility was recently asked to review the legality of the activities of those involved in the surveillance program outside of FISA, but we have learned that OPR was denied the security clearances needed to do their work.

Finally, as I noted before, the Executive Branch says that outside review by the Congress and the courts would hamstring their ability to prevent terrorist attacks. I do not believe that is true, based on the briefings I have received, but even if it were, the answer is to amend FISA, not to throw it out. The FISA law has been changed since September 11 through the PATRIOT Act and the renewal of the PATRIOT Act. It can be done again. In short, if the President sees problems with an existing law, the simple answer is that he should ask to change it--not refuse to follow the law.

This war on terror will be a long war, and it will be mostly fought in the shadows.

It is thus especially important that the Congress and the American people be assured that we are waging that war in a way that upholds our principles and follows the Constitution.

I believe that our national security and core privacy interests can both be protected, given the right tools and authorities, if each branch of government will work together to fulfill their respective roles and obligations.

Congress was able to do that more than 25 years ago when it first enacted FISA, and I am confident we can do it again today.

I have been waiting for the NSA to submit views regarding metadata-- that is, information about communications that does not include content. It is my strong belief that any and all metadata collection programs should be approved by FISA on a program basis. I would hope to add such a provision to this bill at a later time or to introduce a new bill to cover this subject.

Mr. President, I rise today once again with my friend and colleague Senator McConnell to introduce legislation to renew the ban on all imports from Burma for another year.

Our legislation also amends the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to allow the sanctions to be renewed, one year at a time, for up to 6 years.

It is critical that the Congress and the administration send a strong signal to the military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, that our resolve has not weakened and we are still committed to a free and democratic Burma. Unless the SPDC makes ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards a true national dialogue on national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 elections-- decisively won by the National League for Democracy--the import ban must remain in place.

Let us review the facts.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the National League for Democracy, remains under house arrest. 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.

Senator McConnell and I coauthored the ``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' which imposed a complete ban on all imports from Burma.

It was overwhelmingly renewed in 2004 and 2005, and now Congress has the opportunity to reauthorize the sanctions for one more year.

But the United States cannot act alone. The United Nations and the international community have a vital role to play.

Along with Senator McConnell and others, we have repeatedly made the case that given the numerous human rights abuses, the spread of HIV/ AIDS, the illicit production and trafficking of narcotics, and the trafficking of human beings by the military junta, the situation in Burma should be referred to the United Nations Security Council for debate and appropriate action.

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 U.N. 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

Mr. President, I rise today once again with my friend and colleague Senator McConnell to introduce legislation to renew the ban on all imports from Burma for another year.

Our legislation also amends the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 to allow the sanctions to be renewed, one year at a time, for up to 6 years.

It is critical that the Congress and the administration send a strong signal to the military junta, the State Peace and Development Council, that our resolve has not weakened and we are still committed to a free and democratic Burma. Unless the SPDC makes ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards a true national dialogue on national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 elections-- decisively won by the National League for Democracy--the import ban must remain in place.

Let us review the facts.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and leader of the National League for Democracy, remains under house arrest. 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.

Senator McConnell and I coauthored the ``Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003'' which imposed a complete ban on all imports from Burma.

It was overwhelmingly renewed in 2004 and 2005, and now Congress has the opportunity to reauthorize the sanctions for one more year.

But the United States cannot act alone. The United Nations and the international community have a vital role to play.

Along with Senator McConnell and others, we have repeatedly made the case that given the numerous human rights abuses, the spread of HIV/ AIDS, the illicit production and trafficking of narcotics, and the trafficking of human beings by the military junta, the situation in Burma should be referred to the United Nations Security Council for debate and appropriate action.

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 U.N. 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

Mr. President, I wish to comment on amendment No. 4084, which was tabled yesterday.

The Chambliss amendment would modify the eligibility requirements for blue card and green card status under AgJOBS, as drafted in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.

The Chambliss amendment would make the AgJOBS earned legalization program unworkable by denying most farm workers access to it.

Just yesterday, my staff received an e-mail from the California Canning Peach Association, which produces 80 percent of the peach volume in California. They said that the Chambliss amendment would eliminate at least 90 percent of their workers from pursuing earned adjustment under the current AgJOBS language.

When I look at the Chambliss amendment, I find it to be counter to the language in AgJOBS.

One reason I believe the Chambliss amendment is counter to providing American farmers with a legal work force is the work day requirement he proposes.

Senator Chambliss' amendment would change the definition of ``workday'' to 8 hours per day. This change would essentially gut the bill because agricultural workers simply wouldn't be able to demonstrate 8-hour workdays.

Under his amendment, in order to get a blue card, agricultural workers would have to prove that they worked at least 150 work days per year during the 24-month period ending on December 31, 2005.

Anything short of an 8-hour day wouldn't count.

This is just unworkable and impractical. There are many reasons why a farm worker might not be able to demonstrate 8-hour workdays, such as:

Weather conditions--maybe it is raining or too cold, there's hail. For instance, oranges can't be picked wet nor can table grapes. So if it rains and workers have only worked 6 hours, they have to call it a day. That wouldn't count under the Chambliss amendment.

Transportation issues--workers may not be able to catch a ride one day, or their ride may leave after only 7 hours. That wouldn't count under the Chambliss amendment.

Market demands--workers can only pick what growers ask of them, and if the market only demands x number of oranges in 1 day and that only takes 6 hours, then that is all the work they will have in that day. That wouldn't count under the Chambliss amendment.

Sickness--a worker may have a cold or other ailment that might keep them from working for a few days. In agriculture, given the seasonal nature of work, a few days lost are precious to a worker.

Labor shortages--one condition that growers tell me about are labor shortages and how they impact how many hours workers put in. For instance, a crew of workers might be in such demand that they only put in 7 hours each per day. That wouldn't count under the Chambliss amendment.

All of these are reasons why workers may not put in 8-hour workdays. And if they don't, then that doesn't count toward their eligibility and they remain here illegally.

The average number of hours that California agricultural workers log daily is 5.97 hours per day. And that's for crops like citrus, vegetables, tree fruit.

Many farm workers do not work 8 hours per day even when working full- time and 6 days a week.

Frequently, agricultural workers work 3 to 7 hours per day. This amendment would deny workers credit for their farm work on such days, and deprive them of the chance to enter the program.

Many jobs in agriculture result in fewer than 8 hours per day, particularly at times other than the peak of the harvest.

Luawanna Hallstrom with Harry Singh & Sons, which is the largest single vine ripe tomato grower in the

country, explained the following to my staff about the average hours worked in a season, and how they may vary in a typical year or season at their farm in San Diego, CA.

She said that work hours and days can change from one year to the next because of reasons beyond their control--weather, production, changes to timing of harvest, fluctuation in number of employees available at any point in time, disease and more.

Ms. Hallstrom noted that agriculture is extremely fluid and vulnerable and a typical work week for them can consist of anything from 0 to 10 hours.

Another grower, Benny Jefferson, a large vegetable grower in Monterey, CA told my staff that his average worker works 6 hours per day and that 8-hour days would be a serious problem for him.

By way of example, the following job offers were posted in America's Job Bank of the U.S. Department of Labor:

Seeking farm worker for ``harvesting fruits such as blueberries, cherries, strawberries, grapes, oranges, and pecans'' in Georgia for ``full time'' work of 32 hours per week.

Seeking Citrus Harvest Worker in Florida for a contract period from April 30, 2006, to June 30, 2006, Monday through Saturday. Hours: 36 hours per week, 6 hours per day.

Florida employers seek nursery labor in West Virginia for 40 hours week, 7 hours per day Monday through Friday and 5 hours on Saturdays.

What do these job postings show? That even ``full time'' work often means less than 8 hours per day.

So I believe that the Chambliss amendment, if successful, would deprive most farm workers of the chance to enter the earned legalization program, or if they entered, the chance to earn a green card.

The Chambliss amendment is an effort to destroy the AgJOBS compromise. It is not only unfair but counterproductive.

One purpose of AgJOBS is to stabilize the workforce by encouraging undocumented workers to come forward and work in agriculture in return for the opportunity to earn a blue card and eventually, after additional hard work in the fields, a green card.

By depriving many farm workers of this opportunity, the Chambliss amendment would perpetuate the unstable farm labor force that contains so many undocumented workers.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. It is a time to recognize the immeasurable contributions in service, commerce, and cultural diversity made by Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent who continue to strengthen our great Nation's character and influence.

I believe that the United States draws its strength from a proud history of immigration.

The Asian Pacific American community is an essential part of that tradition and it boasts an extremely vibrant and diverse population.

Places such as Chinatown, Korea Town, Little Tokyo, Little Saigon, and Filipino Town only enhance the richness of the American urban landscape.

Today, more than 14 million Asian Pacific Americans live in the United States.

I am proud to come from the State that has the highest population of Asian Pacific Americans, nearly 5 million.

In particular, Los Angeles County is home to the country's single largest Asian community, with 1.4 million individuals.

California owes a great deal to the tradition of Asian Pacific Americans who have made their home in the Golden State since the 1800s.

To help honor that legacy, last year, Congress authorized the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act. Known as the ``Ellis Island of the West,'' over 1 million immigrants, including 175,000 Chinese immigrants, passed through its gateways to establish new lives on the west coast. Now, this location can continue to provide us with a vital link to our Nation's history and culture.

Let me take a moment to pay tribute to the visionaries who helped to create the Asian Pacific Heritage Month: Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta; U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye; Former U.S. Senator Spark Masunaga; and Former Congressman Frank Horton.

Thanks to the leadership of these fine individuals, a joint resolution established Asian Pacific American Heritage Week in 1978, initially designating the first 10 days of May as the annual time of recognition. That was later expanded to a month-long celebration in 1992.

The month of May holds special significance for the Asian Pacific American community. It coincides with two important milestones: The arrival in the United States of the first Japanese immigrants on May 7, 1843; and the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10, 1869 thanks in large part to the contributions of thousands of Chinese workers. This year, the theme chosen to represent this year's Heritage Month is ``Dreams and Challenges of Asian Pacific Americans.'' It is designed to recognize the struggle of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who continue to stand firm against adversity in the pursuit of the American dream.

Sadly, the Asian Pacific American community understands all too well this struggle.

Their story has been entangled with several dark chapters of America's history.

It began in the 1800s, when people of Asian Pacific ancestry were prohibited from owning property, voting, testifying in court, or attending school.

This story of persecution regrettably continued throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries: the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which prohibited the immigration of Chinese to the United States; a 1913 California law, which prohibited immigrant aliens from owning land; the repatriation of Filipino immigrants in 1935; and the mandatory internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This particular story remains a blight on the conscience of this great Nation.

Nevertheless, the Asian Pacific American community found a way to endure and persevere over these injustices and indignities.

In so doing, they to create a tradition of triumph over adversity that personifies the best of this Nation's character.

But our Nation cannot afford to overlook their sacrifice and struggle.

For this reason, I am proud that in the 109th Congress, Tule Lake-- the largest internment camp of the 10 that existed--was designated as a National Historic Landmark. This will help future generations acknowledge and understand the painful legacy of the Japanese Americans who endured the shame of the forced internment camps used during the bleak days of World War II.

I would also like to take a moment to commend the 300,000 Asian Pacific American veterans who established the practice of military service for the thousands of Asian Pacific American men and women currently serving in our Armed Forces.

One such individual is my distinguished colleague, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

Even though his loyalties to our Nation and that of many other Japanese Americans--were falsely and wrongly questioned during World War II, Senator Inouye proudly participated in our Nation's most highly decorated unit, the Army's 442nd ``Go for Broke'' regiment combat team.

Since then, Senator Inouye has continued to serve this country as a devoted public servant and exemplary citizen.

His story of boldness and aspiration is not unique. Throughout the decades, countless numbers of Asian Pacific Americans have worked tirelessly to build better lives for themselves and their families.

But although many Asian Americans have achieved success, we cannot forget the hardships of the Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander communities that were forced out of their homelands and who are now struggling to prosper here in America.

According to the 2000 Census, Southeast Asian Americans have the lowest percentage of education, with most possessing less than a high school education. They also have the lowest proficiency of English and one of the highest rates of receiving public assistance.

We cannot allow these individuals to be ignored or overlooked. I will do everything I can to help this community prosper.

In closing, as we reflect on many individual stories of achievement and success during this month of May, we are steadily inspired by the standards Asian Pacific Americans set in our schools, in the business world, and our neighborhoods. I am confident that their dynamic initiative and entrepreneurship will only continue to inspire us to greatness in the years to come.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will restore authority to the Forest Service to retain marina permit revenue for local expenditure.

Within some National Forests, the Forest Service has partnered with local small business owners, allowing them to operate houseboat marinas. In exchange, the Forest Service collects occupancy fees from these marina operators. A portion of these fees had, until recently, been kept in the Forest for local recreation and safety enhancement projects. My legislation allows the Forest Service to once again use these fees in the Forest where they were generated, and where their impact will be most direct.

Several units of the National Forest system will benefit from this legislation, but the unit most affected is the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California. Under the 1996 Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, the Shasta-Trinity Forest developed a recreation enhancement program at Shasta and Trinity Lakes. Forest Service officials used a portion of the revenue from this program for projects like dock repair, improved handicapped access, safety markers for boaters, law enforcement, and campground construction. Over $4 million was invested in the Forest through this program.

However, the program was inadvertently repealed when the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was passed. My legislation will correct this oversight by amending the Forest Service's Special Use Permit program, returning this recreation and safety project authority to the agency.

Recreation on Federal lands is important to quality of life in my state and throughout the nation. In many rural areas, it also provides a boost to the economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a simple bill correcting an oversight in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Nonetheless, it has important implications both for recreation enhancement and for the local economies around the affected National Forests.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2006.

This legislation seeks to implement prior congressional action taken in 1988 to require the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. It is an absolutely essential step if the Redwood County is to obtain a firm and reliable water supply.

In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project to supply water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, in Northern California. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million partially financed this project.

Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The initial use projections developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau were seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise funds was restricted when a moratorium on new hook-ups was imposed; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's water allotment by 15 percent.

As a result of this situation, in 1998 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 that indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This loan renegotiation has never taken place and now the District finds its water supply highly uncertain. The Bureau of Reclamation acknowledged in a 2000 report that the District needs a reliable water supply in order to solve its current financial dilemma.

The District has recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could supply a firm and reliable source. No government funds will be sought for these projects, and the District will rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to repayment of the new loans.

This legislation requires the District to repay the United States the currently suspended loans once the new loans have been repaid. The new water project will provide enough revenue to allow the District to repay both its private loan and the United States government. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, the legislation creates a win-win solution for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Redwood Valley County Water District.

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