Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the students of the Taft High School Academic Decathlon Team on becoming this year's 2006 National Champions.

Each year, the U.S. Academic Decathlon tests our Nation's best and brightest in a host of subjects including calculus, writing, impromptu speaking, music, and art history. The competition is consistently among the most rigorous in the country.

Amassing an outstanding 51,659 points out of a possible 60,000, Taft High School earned one of the most sweeping and significant victories in recent decathlon history. As one decathlon official noted, ``I've never seen anything like this.''

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

I commend the team coach Dr. Arthur Berchin and Taft High School faculty and administrators for their invaluable guidance, and I applaud the participants' parents for their unwavering dedication and commitment to helping these students reach their full potential.

I would also like to recognize team members Zachary Ellington, Michael Farrell, Farhan Khan, David Lopez, David Novgorodsky, Julia Rebrova, Atish Sawant, Dean Schaffer, and Monica Schettler for their tremendous poise and determination. I encourage them to continue the hard work and perseverance that have brought them this victory. They are wonderful examples of true scholarship, and have made Taft High School, the county of Los Angeles, and the State of California very proud.

What is more extraordinary is that each Taft High School team member placed first, second, or third in all ten of their individual events, totaling 43 medals and capturing 7 of the top 9 awards for individual performance.

Equally important, the Taft High School Academic Decathlon Team is one strengthened by diversity, including students from Russia and Bangladesh. Good schools, like good societies and good families, celebrate and cherish diversity.

Many of these students have decided to take their scholastic successes to the next level, and will attend a myriad of prestigious colleges and universities in the fall. All participants have already taken undergraduate-level courses, and their passionate pursuit of academic excellence is indeed noteworthy.

Once again, I would like to honor the entire Taft High School Academic Decathlon 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 an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate resolution concerning Channel Islands National Park, with Senator Boxer as an original cosponsor.

We firmly believe that Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, should continue to be administered by the National Park Service in accordance with the laws, regulations, and policies of the National Park Service, including the National Park Service Organic Act.

Channel Islands National Monument was designated in 1938 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt under the authority of the Antiquities Act.

The monument was expanded to include additional islands and redesignated as Channel Islands National Park in 1980 in order to protect the nationally significant natural, scenic, wildlife, marine, ecological, archaeological, cultural, and scientific values of the Channel Islands in California.

Santa Rosa Island was acquired by the United States in 1986 for approximately $30 million for the purpose of restoring its native ecology and making the island available to the public for recreational uses. The previous owners of the Island retained only an agreement for the non-commercial use and occupancy of a 7.6-acre parcel of land through 2011.

The non-native elk and deer population are to be removed from the park by 2011 under a court-approved settlement and the Island restored to management consistent with other national parks.

We introduce this resolution to express our concern with a provision that the House Armed Services Committee has included in the House version of the Defense authorization bill.

The provision would prohibit the Park Service from carrying out the court-approved settlement's direction to remove the population of non- native deer and elk.

To the contrary, we believe that Congress should not direct the National Park Service to manage Santa Rosa Island in a manner that would result in the public being denied access to significant portions of the Island for any substantial period of time.

If the Park Service is unable to manage the non-native deer and elk population, the population will likely be managed through the present practice of privately organized hunting editions that currently require the closure of about 90 percent of the Island to the general public for 4-5 months out of the year. The national parks belong to the American people, and the parks should remain freely open to the people.

We also believe that Congressional direction for Santa Rosa Island should not be inconsistent with the requirement to protect and enhance native park resources, including threatened and endangered species.

There are 11 endangered or threatened plant and animal species on the Island, many of which would be harmed by the proposal.

In particular, the bald eagle is at risk from eating carcasses containing lead bullets used by the hunters; the Santa Rosa Island fox is preyed upon by golden eagles attracted by fawns and other deer; and the Island's endangered plants are threatened by the deer and elk.

In addition, there are substantial archaeological resources on the Island

which could be at risk, including potentially the oldest discovered human remains in North America, 13,000 years old, and remains of the rare pygmy mammoth.

In summary, we believe that the National Park Service should manage Santa Rosa Island to ensure that the Island's natural, scenic, and cultural resources are properly protected, restored, and interpreted for the public, and that park visitors are provided with a safe and enjoyable park experience.

I urge my colleagues to support this Senate resolution.

Mr. President, I am joined in the Senate by my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer. We are joined at the hip in opposition to this. If there ever was a disaster waiting to happen, it is the levee situation in the State of California. I will take a few minutes to explain why.

Let me begin with this fact. We have a comparison of flood protection levels for major river cities. Sacramento is the only city in the Nation with 85-year protection. All comparable cities--New Orleans, 250-year flood protection; Omaha, 250 years; Dallas, 500 years; Kansas City, St. Louis, Tacoma, 500 years.

The problem is, much of this area is 20 feet or more below the river, below the flood basins.

I stood in a home in Sacramento on Saturday. It was 20 feet below the level of the river. That is the problem. The sedimentary base of soils there is peat, and it is easily crumbled.

What you have are 2,600 miles of levees--some owned by the Federal Government, some by the State, some by private owners. These levees become eroded. And because of the heavy rain--the heaviest rainfall, I believe, that I can remember in California--there is deep concern about these levees.

Let me show you the specific area we are talking about. Shown in this picture is the Sacramento Pocket Area. The Governor, Mr. Pombo of the House, and a number of other public officials were right in this area-- standing right here--a short time ago. We flew over the area. These are homes, all 20 feet below the river area. There are several places in this area that are priority needs for restoration immediately.

The Governor has declared a state of emergency. The Governor has advanced State moneys. The Governor has said this is of urgent priority. The fact of the matter is, at any time, places along this levee could go. You would flood 100,000 people in 20 feet of water. Many would be unable to evacuate. You would have real catastrophe.

The Army Corps of Engineers, through Colonel Light, the commander of the Sacramento District, came back. We sat down with Senator Cochran, the chairman of the committee, Senator Byrd, Senator Domenici, and Senator Reid. It was all explained that there is an emergency. Earthquake probabilities, for a major earthquake equal to 1906 in San Francisco or higher, are 62 percent by 2030. If there is an earthquake equal to what took place in California, the likelihood is that this entire area would be flooded and hundreds of thousands of people could be involved.

Now, this bill provides $23 million in contingent emergency funding. This particular division is $11.3 million. Funding would become available only if the President requests the money and certifies that it is an emergency.

As I say, on February 24, the Governor proclaimed this state of emergency. He cited 24 critical erosion sites. That has been changed to 29 because of ongoing erosions due to the current high water level.

Today, there are 400 people from Sacramento who were worried enough about it that they have come to the Capitol to lobby for these funds. The money can become available as soon as the President signs the bill and certifies the contingent emergency.

The Sacramento River Bank Protection Project is the Federal project that repairs these critical erosion sites. This additional funding will ensure that these sites are repaired in this construction season. Both the State, Senator Boxer, and I have looked very carefully: Is this money that could be used this fiscal year, before the end of September, on these sites? The answer is clearly, yes.

Today, President Bush announced he is expediting environmental review to allow construction work on the sites to proceed as quickly as possible.

So President Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger, and the Senate Appropriations Committee all recognize how important it is to repair the weakened levees along the Sacramento River.

Mr. President, 174 actively eroding sites on levee banks have been identified. The highest priority is 29 of these sites. That is what we are trying to repair as soon as possible to prevent subdivisions, such as this one shown in this picture, from being inundated with 20 feet of water.

I stood there. I saw it. I saw the difference in height. And that is a phenomenon on the levee. Some might say housing should have never been built there, but the fact is it was.

The critical sites we are asking money for stretch along 137 miles of the Sacramento River. They include areas of the river in the city of Sacramento, and that is this pocket area.

Now, these homes sit virtually in the shadow of the levee system, and modeling by Sacramento show that a breached levee would result in the area flooding to depths of 17 to 20 feet.

This area is called the ``Pocket'' because the homes sit in a pocket by a broad curve in the river.

Mr. President, 33,000 homes are here; 100,000 people live right here. Colonel Light, the commander of the Sacramento District of the Corps, has indicated to me, to Senator Cochran, to Senator Byrd, to Senator Domenici, to Senator Reid, that this money can be utilized by the Corps now. The reason they cannot transfer funds is because prior legislation of this body and the other body prohibits the transfer of funds above a certain amount in a timely and effective manner.

The repairs consist largely of armoring the levees with rock. Of the 29 sites, repairs for 5 have been designed already, and the remainder will be designed in the next few months.

I do not need to tell you what a major flood would do. I do not need to tell you that these rivers are at historic highs right now. And it is as the river begins to decline that they worry most because the fear is the water subsiding will take with it portions of this levee.

The work has to be done.

It is kind of interesting. I often tell a story of when I was mayor, and the director of Public Works came to me and said: Madam Mayor, I think if there was an earthquake, the rim of Candlestick Park would come down. And I thought: What is the likelihood of that? I said: How much does it cost? He told me. And then I thought: I now know this. I have an obligation to do something about it. We found the money. We repaired the rim. And who would have thought that the Giants would have been in the second game of the World Series, at 5 o'clock, when the Loma Prieta earthquake hit, and the rim of Candlestick Park--had it come down--would have killed 20,000 people sitting directly below it.

I am telling you that these levee banks could breach. I am telling you that 100,000 people and 33,000 homes--as shown right here--could lose their lives and their homes. And the evacuation difficulty is enormous.

It seems to me that once we know this as public officials, we have an absolute obligation to do something about it.

The Appropriations Committee has agreed. The money can be used this fiscal year. And both my colleague and I believe very strongly we should vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I would like to yield the floor to my colleague. I know she is here somewhere.

I certainly will.

Well, it is interesting. City and county budgets have to be balanced. The only budgets that do not have to be balanced are the State budget, at least in California, and the Federal budget. But we had to balance our budget, so, yes, I did have to find the money by taking it from other places. That is true.

I will.

Yes. Because I am told the declaration of emergency by the State and the contingent emergency by the President, which he said he would declare this morning, effectively clears that for this particular work on these particular high-priority sites.

Yes, I will.

Well, of course it does. Of course it concerns me. But we learn in this business. And I think Katrina was a big learning lesson for all of us. And we have not done right by our infrastructure.

One of the problems is, as we have to cut discretionary spending that is nondefense, not entitlements, the only thing we are cutting--we are cutting 18 percent of what we spend every year. These are Federal levees. They are owned by the Federal Government. There is a responsibility to protect the people behind them.

Of course.

Well, I have not looked at this. I was at the Napa River, where we have a big flood project, and there is a problem there. The corps there told me they could not transfer funds above a certain amount. And I believe there was some provision in a prior supplemental to prevent the transferring of that money.

Let me say this to the Senator. Do I believe this is a life emergency? Yes. Do I believe that any day these 100,000 people and 33,000 homes could be flooded? Yes. Why? Because I know they are 20 feet below the water level. I know the water level is the highest it has ever been. I know the levees are eroded. I know what they call ``boils'' are popping up all over.

I know it could happen. And when it happens, it happens so fast because there is so much water. So because I know it, and now you know it, we have an obligation to do something about it. And that is what the Government is here for: to save lives in the event of an emergency.

We also know that earthquake probabilities are way up, and this could be devastating. So this work has to be done. We are asking for money in the Energy and Water bill. We will have additional money there. We are going through the regular channels. But this high priority work should be done now. And we should get the money there as fast as we possibly can.

It could happen tomorrow, it could happen the next day, the next week. I

could not live with myself if it happened, and, respectfully, you could not live with yourself if it happened because you now know it can happen.

Mr. President, I introduce today legislation to require the White House to notify Congress when it declassifies information. This bill will both enhance Congress's oversight abilities and ensure that intelligence is not used for political gain.

This legislation recognizes that as the head of the executive branch, the President has the authority to declassify any information he so chooses. It does not place any conditions or procedures on that declassification process, it only requires that the Congress be provided with notice so that it can meet its own constitutional responsibilities.

Information is usually declassified because the public's need to know outweighs the security risks to intelligence sources and methods. In such cases, it is important for the Congress to be informed so that Senators and Representatives can discuss the issues with the American people.

And if the President declassifies information so that his subordinates can discuss intelligence with reporters, Congress should be alerted so that the intelligence committees can ensure that national secrets are not being used for political purposes.

According to court filings and media reports, the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, acting on the direction and authorization of the President and Vice President, disclosed information in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to select journalists. This was not done to provide the American people with a fuller understanding of the pre-Iraq war intelligence; the Estimate was fully and publicly declassified shortly afterwards in a more appropriate manner. Rather, the selective declassification and leak was intended to stem a tide of bad press and discredit an administration critic through a subtle campaign of media manipulation.

According to the prosecutor in Mr. Libby's case, Libby provided information on Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The Niger claim was not a ``key judgment'' of the NIE, meaning that it was not deemed by the intelligence community to be a priority. It was included in the body of the report ``for completeness,'' according to the primary author. At the time, the Department of State's intelligence office found the Niger uranium claim to be ``highly dubious,'' and the intelligence community downplayed the Niger connection afterwards:

The CIA had deleted a reference to Niger from the President's October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati;

Two senior intelligence officials had downplayed the assessment in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee;

The International Atomic Energy Agency had denounced the claim as being based on forged documents; and

The intelligence community had retracted the intelligence.

Let me say that again: the intelligence community had retracted this piece of intelligence. None of this additional information, apparently, was provided by Mr. Libby.

Had the Senate and House intelligence committees been informed of this declassification, as would be required by this legislation, Members could have corrected the public record.

I would hope that with this reporting requirement, administrations of both political parties will be deterred from improper use of intelligence.

In addition to stemming the politicization of intelligence, the bill I introduce today also notes the importance of keeping the full intelligence community informed of declassifications. If the President chooses, for whatever reason, to declassify information, the intelligence agency that had been responsible for those secrets has to take steps to protect intelligence sources and methods.

Similarly, the National Archives are to be informed upon a Presidential declassification so the Nation's records can be appropriately maintained. As has been highlighted again today with the release of the Archives audit over the reclassification of intelligence, the Archives play an important role in providing declassified intelligence to the public. To do so, it must be informed when information enters the public domain.

It should be made clear that there are more traditional procedures by which individual intelligence agencies declassify information on a regular basis, when the release of that information is seen as no longer damaging the national security. This is done thousands of times a week throughout the intelligence community.

It is important that the public have access to as much information on its government's activities as possible. To that end, I look forward, through this legislation and otherwise, to working with my colleagues and the executive branch to ensure that declassification is done as extensively and as quickly as possible without risking our national security.

Mr. President, I introduce today legislation to require the White House to notify Congress when it declassifies information. This bill will both enhance Congress's oversight abilities and ensure that intelligence is not used for political gain.

This legislation recognizes that as the head of the executive branch, the President has the authority to declassify any information he so chooses. It does not place any conditions or procedures on that declassification process, it only requires that the Congress be provided with notice so that it can meet its own constitutional responsibilities.

Information is usually declassified because the public's need to know outweighs the security risks to intelligence sources and methods. In such cases, it is important for the Congress to be informed so that Senators and Representatives can discuss the issues with the American people.

And if the President declassifies information so that his subordinates can discuss intelligence with reporters, Congress should be alerted so that the intelligence committees can ensure that national secrets are not being used for political purposes.

According to court filings and media reports, the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, acting on the direction and authorization of the President and Vice President, disclosed information in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to select journalists. This was not done to provide the American people with a fuller understanding of the pre-Iraq war intelligence; the Estimate was fully and publicly declassified shortly afterwards in a more appropriate manner. Rather, the selective declassification and leak was intended to stem a tide of bad press and discredit an administration critic through a subtle campaign of media manipulation.

According to the prosecutor in Mr. Libby's case, Libby provided information on Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The Niger claim was not a ``key judgment'' of the NIE, meaning that it was not deemed by the intelligence community to be a priority. It was included in the body of the report ``for completeness,'' according to the primary author. At the time, the Department of State's intelligence office found the Niger uranium claim to be ``highly dubious,'' and the intelligence community downplayed the Niger connection afterwards:

The CIA had deleted a reference to Niger from the President's October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati;

Two senior intelligence officials had downplayed the assessment in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee;

The International Atomic Energy Agency had denounced the claim as being based on forged documents; and

The intelligence community had retracted the intelligence.

Let me say that again: the intelligence community had retracted this piece of intelligence. None of this additional information, apparently, was provided by Mr. Libby.

Had the Senate and House intelligence committees been informed of this declassification, as would be required by this legislation, Members could have corrected the public record.

I would hope that with this reporting requirement, administrations of both political parties will be deterred from improper use of intelligence.

In addition to stemming the politicization of intelligence, the bill I introduce today also notes the importance of keeping the full intelligence community informed of declassifications. If the President chooses, for whatever reason, to declassify information, the intelligence agency that had been responsible for those secrets has to take steps to protect intelligence sources and methods.

Similarly, the National Archives are to be informed upon a Presidential declassification so the Nation's records can be appropriately maintained. As has been highlighted again today with the release of the Archives audit over the reclassification of intelligence, the Archives play an important role in providing declassified intelligence to the public. To do so, it must be informed when information enters the public domain.

It should be made clear that there are more traditional procedures by which individual intelligence agencies declassify information on a regular basis, when the release of that information is seen as no longer damaging the national security. This is done thousands of times a week throughout the intelligence community.

It is important that the public have access to as much information on its government's activities as possible. To that end, I look forward, through this legislation and otherwise, to working with my colleagues and the executive branch to ensure that declassification is done as extensively and as quickly as possible without risking our national security.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights-holders in Music Act, or the PERFORM Act, along with Senators Graham and Frist.

The need to protect creative works has been an important principle recognized in our country since its inception.

The founding fathers accurately understood the importance of intellectual property by including protective language in our Constitution, and in doing so they established a principle that would stand the test of time.

However, they could not have predicted that the path of innovation would eventually produce the amazing new technologies that we now take for granted.

While many of us still enjoy traditional analog radio, this, too, is rapidly changing. We now have music radio programs provided over the Internet, cable, and satellites. Even traditional radio is changing with the advent of new digital radio.

With the entry into the marketplace of these new music providers consumers are receiving the songs and artists they enjoy in new and innovative ways.

Yet, as these new business models and technologies are developed we must ensure that the artists and musicians who create and perform the music continue to be fairly compensated for their works.

Unfortunately, some of the new innovations have been used to supplant music sales and avoid fair compensation to the songwriters and performers.

From 1999 to 2004, total music sales have declined by 30 percent. Over the same period, CD sales declined 18 percent. The decline continued in 2005 as total album sales fell 7.2 percent year-over-year.

Some of this decline is due to outdated business models and competition from other entertainment products, some due to illegal actions and piracy, and some is due to outdated music licensing laws.

I believe our laws must strike the proper balance between fostering new business models and technology and protecting the property rights of the artists whose music is being broadcast.

I strongly support advancements in technology and I encourage ingenuity. The birth of the digital music place has been a boon for businesses and consumers. It is important that these new forums succeed and grow.

However, these new technologies and business models have become so advanced that the clear lines between a listening service and a reproduction and copying service has been blurred.

Historically, a radio service simply allowed music to be performed and listened to by an audience. However, many new services using the new digital transmissions and new technological devices have allowed consumers to also record, manipulate, and collect individual music play-lists off their radio-like services.

Thus, what was once a passive listening experience has turned into a forum where consumers can record, manipulate, reprogram and save songs to create their own personalized playlists.

As the modes of distribution change and the technologies change, so must our laws change. The government granted a compulsory license for radio-like services by Internet, cable, and satellite providers in order to encourage competition and new products.

However, as new innovations alter their services from a performance to a distribution the law must respond.

In addition, as the changing technology evolves, the distinctions between the services become less and less, and the differences in how they are treated under the statutory license make less sense.

Therefore I am introducing a bill that will begin to fix the inequities currently in the statute and open the door to further debate about additional issues that need to be addressed.

The bill I am introducing today with Senators Graham and Frist would: create rate parity--all companies covered by the government license created in Section 114 would be required to pay a fair market value for use of music libraries rather than having different rate standards apply based on what medium is being used to transmit the music; and establish content protection--all companies would be required to use reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to prevent music theft. In addition, a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty.

This does not mean such devices cannot be made or distributed. It simply means that the business must negotiate the payment for the music through the market rather than under the statutory license.

The bill also contains language to make sure that consumers' current recording habits are not inhibited. Therefore, any recording the consumer chooses to do manually will still be allowed. In addition, if the device allows the consumer to manipulate music by program, channel, or time period that would still be allowable under the statutory license.

For example, if a listener chooses to automatically record a news station every morning at 9:00; a jazz station every afternoon at 2:00; a blues station every Friday at 3:00; and a talk radio show every Saturday at 4:00; that would be allowable. In addition, that listener could then use their recording device to move these programs so that all programs of the same genre are back to back.

What a listener cannot do is set a recording device to find all the Frank Sinatra songs being played on the radio-service and only record those songs. By making these distinctions this bill supports new business models and technologies without harming the songwriters and performers in the process.

Unfortunately, anytime legislation is introduced there is a lot of misinformation about what it does. Often criticisms are lobbed without reviewing the actual text of the bill. So, let me be clear about some of the concerns I have heard.

The bill would not apply to over-the-air broadcasting. Terrestrial radio, i.e. traditional radio distributed by the broadcasters is not covered under this bill. This legislation only covers businesses that are under the 114 license--Internet, cable, and satellite.

The only application to broadcasters would be if they were to act as webcasters and simulcast their programs over the Internet, in which case they would be treated the same as all other Internet radio providers.

The bill would not inhibit technological advances. It would place limits on the types of recording devices cable, Internet and satellite providers may offer, IF they want to enjoy the benefit of a government license.

If, however, a company wants to offer new technologies that allow for manipulation of music so that a consumer may create their own music libraries, similar to a downloading service, they may. There is nothing in this bill prohibiting the use or creation of new technologies the company would simply lose the benefit of a government license.

The bill simply states that if a company wants to change its service from a performance to a distribution then they no longer are covered by the government license and must go to the record companies directly to negotiate a licensing agreement through the market.

The bill would not be discriminatory. Some argue that changing the rates or establishing content protection is discriminatory. However, under current law some businesses are required to pay higher licensing rates than others even though they provide essentially the same services.

In addition, if a new satellite company were to be formed today they would be required to pay a higher rate than the current two companies in the market--that is not fair. Instead this bill would establish the same rates and protections for all companies.

The argument that this bill is discriminatory ignores the inequities of current law as it applies to Internet, cable, old and new satellite providers and instead focuses on the differences between these new radio providers versus terrestrial or traditional over-the-air radio.

The argument is that there are already devices available and new technologies that allow consumers to capture and manipulate music being played by over-the-air broadcasters. Yet this bill does not apply to broadcasters and instead only applies to Internet, cable and satellite.

The conclusion being that by not covering broadcasters we are giving them a free pass and being unfair to the new businesses.

While the obvious argument is that the Judiciary Committee does not have jurisdiction to regulate over-the-air broadcasters, I think it is important to acknowledge that the Commerce Committee is actively looking into this issue right now. In addition, I am aware that there are active negotiations occurring between broadcasters and the record labels to develop similar protections for their services.

Thus, while some may be frustrated that jurisdiction may lie in different committees, efforts are on-going in each to address these issues. I do not believe we, in the Judiciary Committee, should wait and do nothing to protect artists and songwriters simply because the Commerce Committee has not yet moved legislation to deal with the same concern for terrestrial radio.

Having said that, let me be clear, this is the beginning of a process to address a very specific problem. I believe that as the process unfolds there will be additional improvements or other issues that may need to be added.

Already, some have raised questions about language in the bill and additional modifications to Section 114 that I believe should be looked at more closely.

I understand there is some concern about what fair market value means, especially under a government licensing scheme where there is not an actual competitive market. I think it makes sense to look into this issue and see if there is a definition that can be developed.

In doing this, I believe we should look at all the different models that have been used. We should look at what the courts have held, what the copyright office has used, what a real competitive market would entail, as well as other factors that may not have been considered.

The bill as introduced does not address the other conditions applied to Internet, cable, and satellite services in order for them to get the benefit of the statutory license. The one that I am most concerned with is interactivity.

I think there is real confusion about what is and what is not allowed under the current statute. How much personalization and customization may these new services offer?

Currently licensing rates are higher for interactive services. However, there are clear disagreements as to what constitutes an interactive service.

I tried to have the parties meet to negotiate a solution to this issue so that we could include new language this in the bill.

However, after two weeks and hours and hours of negotiations the parties were so far apart that a solution could not be reached. Despite this, I still believe this is an important issue that must be addressed.

Therefore, I put a placeholder in the bill that calls for the copyright office to make recommendations to Congress, but I am hopeful that through the process of moving this bill through the Senate we can develop a solution sooner rather than later.

I am hopeful that the parties will again meet and try to develop a compromise, however, if that does not occur I may try to work with my colleagues to develop a legislative solution independently.

Finally, some have raised concerns that applying content protection to all providers is unfair. They argue that if there is no connection between the distributor of the music and the technology provider that allows for copying and manipulating of performances then they should not be required to protect the music that they broadcast.

In general, I do not agree. We know that there are websites out there now that provide so-called stream-ripping services that allow an individual to steal music off an Internet webcast. It is not enough to turn a blind eye to this type of piracy and do nothing simply because there is no formal connection between the businesses.

At the same time, I am sympathetic to the concerns that if the type of technology a company uses is inadequate or ineffective, through no fault of their own, they can be saddled with huge mandatory penalties. I am willing to look at this issue more closely and see if there is some way to address this concern and find a compromise solution.

As I have said, this is the beginning of the process. I think this legislation is a good step forward in addressing a real problem that is occurring in the music industry.

Changes or additions may be necessary as the bill moves forward, but I believe to wait and do nothing does a disservice to all involved.

Music is an invaluable part of all of our lives. The new technologies and changing delivery systems provide exciting new options for all consumers. As we continue to move forward into new frontiers we must ensure that our laws can stand the test of time.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with letters of support for the legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights-holders in Music Act, or the PERFORM Act, along with Senators Graham and Frist.

The need to protect creative works has been an important principle recognized in our country since its inception.

The founding fathers accurately understood the importance of intellectual property by including protective language in our Constitution, and in doing so they established a principle that would stand the test of time.

However, they could not have predicted that the path of innovation would eventually produce the amazing new technologies that we now take for granted.

While many of us still enjoy traditional analog radio, this, too, is rapidly changing. We now have music radio programs provided over the Internet, cable, and satellites. Even traditional radio is changing with the advent of new digital radio.

With the entry into the marketplace of these new music providers consumers are receiving the songs and artists they enjoy in new and innovative ways.

Yet, as these new business models and technologies are developed we must ensure that the artists and musicians who create and perform the music continue to be fairly compensated for their works.

Unfortunately, some of the new innovations have been used to supplant music sales and avoid fair compensation to the songwriters and performers.

From 1999 to 2004, total music sales have declined by 30 percent. Over the same period, CD sales declined 18 percent. The decline continued in 2005 as total album sales fell 7.2 percent year-over-year.

Some of this decline is due to outdated business models and competition from other entertainment products, some due to illegal actions and piracy, and some is due to outdated music licensing laws.

I believe our laws must strike the proper balance between fostering new business models and technology and protecting the property rights of the artists whose music is being broadcast.

I strongly support advancements in technology and I encourage ingenuity. The birth of the digital music place has been a boon for businesses and consumers. It is important that these new forums succeed and grow.

However, these new technologies and business models have become so advanced that the clear lines between a listening service and a reproduction and copying service has been blurred.

Historically, a radio service simply allowed music to be performed and listened to by an audience. However, many new services using the new digital transmissions and new technological devices have allowed consumers to also record, manipulate, and collect individual music play-lists off their radio-like services.

Thus, what was once a passive listening experience has turned into a forum where consumers can record, manipulate, reprogram and save songs to create their own personalized playlists.

As the modes of distribution change and the technologies change, so must our laws change. The government granted a compulsory license for radio-like services by Internet, cable, and satellite providers in order to encourage competition and new products.

However, as new innovations alter their services from a performance to a distribution the law must respond.

In addition, as the changing technology evolves, the distinctions between the services become less and less, and the differences in how they are treated under the statutory license make less sense.

Therefore I am introducing a bill that will begin to fix the inequities currently in the statute and open the door to further debate about additional issues that need to be addressed.

The bill I am introducing today with Senators Graham and Frist would: create rate parity--all companies covered by the government license created in Section 114 would be required to pay a fair market value for use of music libraries rather than having different rate standards apply based on what medium is being used to transmit the music; and establish content protection--all companies would be required to use reasonably available, technologically feasible, and economically reasonable means to prevent music theft. In addition, a company may not provide a recording device to a customer that would allow him or her to create their own personalized music library that can be manipulated and maintained without paying a reproduction royalty.

This does not mean such devices cannot be made or distributed. It simply means that the business must negotiate the payment for the music through the market rather than under the statutory license.

The bill also contains language to make sure that consumers' current recording habits are not inhibited. Therefore, any recording the consumer chooses to do manually will still be allowed. In addition, if the device allows the consumer to manipulate music by program, channel, or time period that would still be allowable under the statutory license.

For example, if a listener chooses to automatically record a news station every morning at 9:00; a jazz station every afternoon at 2:00; a blues station every Friday at 3:00; and a talk radio show every Saturday at 4:00; that would be allowable. In addition, that listener could then use their recording device to move these programs so that all programs of the same genre are back to back.

What a listener cannot do is set a recording device to find all the Frank Sinatra songs being played on the radio-service and only record those songs. By making these distinctions this bill supports new business models and technologies without harming the songwriters and performers in the process.

Unfortunately, anytime legislation is introduced there is a lot of misinformation about what it does. Often criticisms are lobbed without reviewing the actual text of the bill. So, let me be clear about some of the concerns I have heard.

The bill would not apply to over-the-air broadcasting. Terrestrial radio, i.e. traditional radio distributed by the broadcasters is not covered under this bill. This legislation only covers businesses that are under the 114 license--Internet, cable, and satellite.

The only application to broadcasters would be if they were to act as webcasters and simulcast their programs over the Internet, in which case they would be treated the same as all other Internet radio providers.

The bill would not inhibit technological advances. It would place limits on the types of recording devices cable, Internet and satellite providers may offer, IF they want to enjoy the benefit of a government license.

If, however, a company wants to offer new technologies that allow for manipulation of music so that a consumer may create their own music libraries, similar to a downloading service, they may. There is nothing in this bill prohibiting the use or creation of new technologies the company would simply lose the benefit of a government license.

The bill simply states that if a company wants to change its service from a performance to a distribution then they no longer are covered by the government license and must go to the record companies directly to negotiate a licensing agreement through the market.

The bill would not be discriminatory. Some argue that changing the rates or establishing content protection is discriminatory. However, under current law some businesses are required to pay higher licensing rates than others even though they provide essentially the same services.

In addition, if a new satellite company were to be formed today they would be required to pay a higher rate than the current two companies in the market--that is not fair. Instead this bill would establish the same rates and protections for all companies.

The argument that this bill is discriminatory ignores the inequities of current law as it applies to Internet, cable, old and new satellite providers and instead focuses on the differences between these new radio providers versus terrestrial or traditional over-the-air radio.

The argument is that there are already devices available and new technologies that allow consumers to capture and manipulate music being played by over-the-air broadcasters. Yet this bill does not apply to broadcasters and instead only applies to Internet, cable and satellite.

The conclusion being that by not covering broadcasters we are giving them a free pass and being unfair to the new businesses.

While the obvious argument is that the Judiciary Committee does not have jurisdiction to regulate over-the-air broadcasters, I think it is important to acknowledge that the Commerce Committee is actively looking into this issue right now. In addition, I am aware that there are active negotiations occurring between broadcasters and the record labels to develop similar protections for their services.

Thus, while some may be frustrated that jurisdiction may lie in different committees, efforts are on-going in each to address these issues. I do not believe we, in the Judiciary Committee, should wait and do nothing to protect artists and songwriters simply because the Commerce Committee has not yet moved legislation to deal with the same concern for terrestrial radio.

Having said that, let me be clear, this is the beginning of a process to address a very specific problem. I believe that as the process unfolds there will be additional improvements or other issues that may need to be added.

Already, some have raised questions about language in the bill and additional modifications to Section 114 that I believe should be looked at more closely.

I understand there is some concern about what fair market value means, especially under a government licensing scheme where there is not an actual competitive market. I think it makes sense to look into this issue and see if there is a definition that can be developed.

In doing this, I believe we should look at all the different models that have been used. We should look at what the courts have held, what the copyright office has used, what a real competitive market would entail, as well as other factors that may not have been considered.

The bill as introduced does not address the other conditions applied to Internet, cable, and satellite services in order for them to get the benefit of the statutory license. The one that I am most concerned with is interactivity.

I think there is real confusion about what is and what is not allowed under the current statute. How much personalization and customization may these new services offer?

Currently licensing rates are higher for interactive services. However, there are clear disagreements as to what constitutes an interactive service.

I tried to have the parties meet to negotiate a solution to this issue so that we could include new language this in the bill.

However, after two weeks and hours and hours of negotiations the parties were so far apart that a solution could not be reached. Despite this, I still believe this is an important issue that must be addressed.

Therefore, I put a placeholder in the bill that calls for the copyright office to make recommendations to Congress, but I am hopeful that through the process of moving this bill through the Senate we can develop a solution sooner rather than later.

I am hopeful that the parties will again meet and try to develop a compromise, however, if that does not occur I may try to work with my colleagues to develop a legislative solution independently.

Finally, some have raised concerns that applying content protection to all providers is unfair. They argue that if there is no connection between the distributor of the music and the technology provider that allows for copying and manipulating of performances then they should not be required to protect the music that they broadcast.

In general, I do not agree. We know that there are websites out there now that provide so-called stream-ripping services that allow an individual to steal music off an Internet webcast. It is not enough to turn a blind eye to this type of piracy and do nothing simply because there is no formal connection between the businesses.

At the same time, I am sympathetic to the concerns that if the type of technology a company uses is inadequate or ineffective, through no fault of their own, they can be saddled with huge mandatory penalties. I am willing to look at this issue more closely and see if there is some way to address this concern and find a compromise solution.

As I have said, this is the beginning of the process. I think this legislation is a good step forward in addressing a real problem that is occurring in the music industry.

Changes or additions may be necessary as the bill moves forward, but I believe to wait and do nothing does a disservice to all involved.

Music is an invaluable part of all of our lives. The new technologies and changing delivery systems provide exciting new options for all consumers. As we continue to move forward into new frontiers we must ensure that our laws can stand the test of time.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with letters of support for the legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and commemorate April 24, 2005, the 91st anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian genocide. I do so because I believe it is necessary to recognize and ensure that similar atrocities do not happen in the future.

No one knows this better than the 500,000 Armenians who are living in my home State of California. These men, women, and children are a shining example of the backbone of our society and serve as a symbol of perseverance and determination.

Their ancestors came to our country to build a better life for themselves and their families, and today, Armenian-Americans recognize that the repercussions of allowing aggression and injustice against ethnic, religious, or minority groups to persist can be dire.

During the Armenian genocide, which took place between 1915 and 1923, over a million Armenians were killed, and another 500,000 were driven from their homes.

We must never again allow a human tragedy to occur on this scale. It is unacceptable to witness thousands of innocent victims suffer and die without taking any action.

And I know this issue not only resonates with the Armenians in California but with everyone in the country. Every day, numerous constituents from different backgrounds call my office asking what Congress and the administration are doing to prevent genocide from occurring again.

It is absolutely essential that we do not let history repeat itself. We can--and we must--do better.

The Armenian-American community knows this all too well and today, we stand with them in commemorating the start of the Armenian genocide. So let us renew our commitment to support those around the world who face persecution and even death simply because of who they are. We will never forget the Armenian genocide, and we look to the present and future with a newfound sense of hope and optimism so that we may have the strength to stand up and prevent such atrocities.

Mr. President, I offer these words on behalf of Senator Boxer, my friend and colleague, and myself. Senator Craig said it correctly. Senator Boxer and I have more illegal people in one county than most Senators have in their entire State. Therefore, what happens here is of serious consequence for the people of California and for us as well.

We are both going to vote for this motion to commit. We are going to vote for it with the hope that the ensuing weeks are going to enable some parts of it to be worked out more clearly.

I serve on Judiciary. I serve on the Immigration subcommittee. The beauty of the original McCain-Kennedy legislation was that once you accepted that approach, you accepted an approach of balance which was simple and which was able to be carried out.

My concern is by developing the three tiers of individuals, as the Martinez plan does, that you create a much more complicated scenario in terms of enforcement and therefore run the risk that it cannot be carried out well, particularly for those here for less than 2 years-- who are in the millions. They simply disappear into the fabric, once again, of America, and you have the same problem all over again.

I hope during the 2 weeks cool minds will prevail and that we will be able to work on this legislation further. We have been on rather a forced march, a forced march in Judiciary to mark up a bill. There have been more than a half dozen guest worker plans in committee. It has been a difficult and complicated path.

I urge that we come together as one body, that we work together as one body. I think the lives to be affected by what we do are perhaps more deeply affected than with virtually any other piece of legislation. Both Senator Boxer and I offer our time and our energy to try to help in this.

We will vote yes on cloture. It is our hope a majority of this body will do so also.

I yield the floor.

I wish to take this opportunity to recognize the city of Eureka as it prepares to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the city's formation.

The city of Eureka has a long history and often parallels California's past. Founded during the time of the gold rush, it became an important port city for northern California's logging and commercial fishing industries because of its proximity to a rich supply of natural resources. Eureka was incorporated on April 18, 1856, and was designated by the State legislature as the county seat for Humboldt County.

On a more personal note, Eureka is an important part of my family's history. My mother's family left St. Petersburg during the Russian Revolution and traveled by cart through Siberia and boarded a boat finally landing in Eureka.

Today, with a population of over 25,000, Eureka is a city on the move and the cultural center of the California's north coast region. It is the destination for many people wanting to explore miles of unspoiled coastline and visit the world-famous coastal redwoods that are within close proximity of the city.

The city's famed historic architecture has been preserved, earning it the designation as a ``Victorian Seaport.'' The historic Eureka Inn is currently undergoing renovations that will make it once again the center of many community events such as the location of the city's Christmas celebrations.

I congratulate the city of Eureka on your special day and extend my regards to all of the citizens who will be celebrating this important milestone in the city's history. You should feel proud of your past, and I wish you the very best in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Women's History Month. As one of the 14 women in the United States Senate, I consider this tribute of the highest importance. This year's theme for the month is ``Women: Builders of Communities and Dreams.'' There is no better time to salute the work women around the world have done at home and abroad to empower communities.

I am proud to come from the State where Women's History Month was conceived in 1978. Almost 30 years ago, the education task force of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women in California first established Women's History Week in recognition of the achievements of women. This was soon expanded into a month-long celebration, realizing the dream of honoring women in a special way each year.

Women's History Month recognizes those who continually strive for greatness. One that comes to mind is Mary Helen Rogers, who passed away earlier this month. She dedicated her life to protecting African American families in San Francisco from urban displacement. While raising 12 children, she became an expert in housing laws. She helped start the Western Addition Community Organization, which forced the city to assist the residents it displaced. She later went on to serve as the San Francisco Housing Authority's community relations manager. Mary Helen Rogers demonstrated through her life's work the importance of community activism and the power of an individual to inspire action in those around her.

Just last month we lost another very special woman--Dana Reeve, the widow of actor Christopher Reeve. Her commitment to spinal cord injury research and loving dedication to her husband was unmatched. Since Chris' death, she carried his spirit with her in her drive to push Congress to expand embryonic stem cell research. Dana was the face of the fight on behalf of patients across the country with spinal cord injury, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes and countless other illnesses. Her passing should serve as call for expansion of embryonic stem cell research. Mrs. Reeve's steadfast loyalty and compassionate care serves as an example to all women. She will be missed.

In Los Angeles, ``Sweet'' Alice Harris has been a leader in her community for over 40 years. Her steadfast commitment to the community through parent organizations, emergency relief, and youth programs, has made her an example of true community leadership.

As American women, we share a common history: It is a history of fighting for many of the rights and opportunities for which today's young women will prosper. We have come a long way from the days when women had no right to vote, no right to own property, and had extremely limited inheritance or child custody rights.

It wasn't until the Women's Property Act of 1839 that women gained land entitlement. The women's suffrage movement began in 1848; however the 19th amendment, granting women the right to vote, did not come to pass until 72 long years later, in 1920. It is a right for which our predecessors worked hard for. We owe it to them to fulfill our civic duty.

Today, American women are active in every sphere of our society. We have made our mark in this country's private and public sectors. Over 65 million women are a part of the American workforce. There are over 10 million woman-owned businesses. Women represent our Nation around the world. Many proudly wear our Nation's uniform.

Much has changed for over the past century. But make no mistake; much more needs to be done. We must provide improved health care and educational and workforce support for our Nation's women. We need to eliminate violence against women. We need to ensure that women continue to have the right to choose and autonomy over their bodies.

Violence against women is intolerable. Every 15 seconds a woman is battered, and each day four women die from domestic violence. Women should not be threatened by fear and violence. This is why the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization is such an important piece of legislation.

We also need to improve healthcare in our Nation. Breast cancer continues to be a serious threat to women in this country. One out of seven American women will develop the disease, and nearly 41,000 will die from it this year. We must commit ourselves to finding a cure for this disease which affects women regardless of race, class, or religion.

As the sponsor of the breast cancer research stamp, I am proud to say that since its inception in 1998, the stamp has helped raise nearly $50 million. These funds go a long way to help fund research and increase public awareness for this devastating disease. I am also supporting the National Institute of Health and National Cancer Institute legislative efforts to ensure that women undergoing mastectomy and lumpectomy surgeries are protected during their hospital stays. By continuing to prioritize investment in research, it is my hope that we can reach the goal of eradicating breast cancer by 2015.

Pregnant women must be provided with access to clinical care and parenting support. The U.S. infant mortality rate is 35th in the world. We must change this. Providing mothers with proper nutrition and healthy lifestyle education is key to combating preventable illnesses and deaths in mothers and children. Additionally, women are balancing careers with families more than ever, creating the need for affordable, quality childcare options.

Women are also in the midst of the war in Iraq, and we need to honor these women fighting to protect this country and for the dreams of those women who have been oppressed in Iraq and Afghanistan for too long.

Women began enlisting in the military at the start of World War I. Today women are serving in Iraq in record numbers. Women in the armed services make up 15 percent of active duty personnel. There have been nearly 2,000 California female deployments since 9/11. They do jobs that range from intelligence officers to doctors, to ground soldiers.

In Louisiana, Hurricane Katrina swept communities away in an instant. In the areas hardest hit by Katrina, 56 percent of families are headed by women, who are now taking the lead role in rebuilding the homes and lives their families and neighbors once knew. They deserve our help and support. It is only through their efforts that communities in New Orleans can thrive once again.

I salute the women leading the way in building stronger communities in California and across the Nation. They continue to lead and inspire us all. It is through their tenacity, strength, and passion that we see the transformation of dreams into realities. I have great hope for future generations of women, but we must protect and expand the cherished rights of today's women, so that they may continue to serve their communities and realize their dreams.

Mr. President, shortly the Senate is going to be confronted with a vote on two bills, one of them being the leader's bill which deals with enforcement on the border, and the other the Judiciary Committee bill which essentially incorporates provisions of the McCain-Kennedy bill into a broad and comprehensive bill which will, I believe, be before the Senate for discussion and amendment.

The bill approved by the Judiciary Committee is a bipartisan bill. It had a 12-to-6 vote in the committee. It is the first step forward in a very difficult and consequential process to address what has become one of the most contentious issues in American life.

If this bill is approved by the full Senate, it will then have to go to a conference committee and be reconciled against another bill, namely the House bill, which is very onerous in many of its provisions.

The reconciliation of these two bills is going to be extraordinarily difficult to achieve, and it remains uncertain whether any bill can be enacted into law in this current congressional session.

Any legislation approved by Congress, I think, has to take into consideration the reality of today's immigration world in America. It is very different from the 1990s, it is very different from the 1980s, and it is very different from the 1970s. There are very strongly held views on both sides. Most, though, of what is attempted by Federal agencies responsible for the administration of immigration services today and responsible for the protection of our borders has more often than not failed, and we have to deal with that failure.

Employer sanctions, which are the seed of current immigration laws, have failed. Border control is spotty at best. Naturalization takes years. Detention facilities are inadequate. And despite our attempts to gain operational control of our border and to secure the interior of the United States so that everyone plays by the rules, the Government has essentially failed.

We now have 10 million to 12 million undocumented people living in the United States. They have come here illegally. They live furtively. Many of them have been here for 20 to 30 years. I know many. They own their homes. They pay taxes. Their children were born in this country and educated in this country. This is the only home they know. They want to live by the law, but they have no way currently to live by the law.

Employer sanctions, I mentioned, do not and, I believe, in our global economy, will not work. That is evidenced by the fact that in 2004, only 46 employers in the United States were criminally convicted for employer sanctions out of 3,258 cases initiated.

I have watched in California. On the few occasions where immigration officials have gone to agricultural worksites and arrested employers, the public reaction has been entirely negative.

Both you and I know, Mr. President, that a law is only as good as the ability to enforce it. There is virtually today no ability to enforce employer sanctions in the United States of America. Therefore, a more punitive immigration philosophy that is based and dependent upon employer sanctions as working doesn't work and clearly creates a situation whereby there is disorganized chaos in the immigration world.

Another reason for this is our borders are a sieve, porous through and through. The Senator from Arizona correctly mentioned there are 14 miles on the California border with Mexico where there is a two-layer fence. It is an immigration border control process

known as Operation Gatekeeper. It was very controversial when put into play, but it works. And he is correct, immigrants coming in illegally in that corridor have been deterred.

But what has happened is, it has simply pushed them east into unfenced portions of the border, and those portions of the border where the desert and the heat wreak considerable destruction upon anybody crossing.

A concern with porous borders has also brought attention to a classification of aliens known as ``other than Mexicans.'' In 2005, Border Patrol agents apprehended 165,175 ``other than Mexicans'' at the border, 155,000 of them on the southern border.

The concern here is that many of these people are increasingly from terrorist-supporting countries, and that presents a real potential national security threat to our country.

We continue to have a catch-and-release policy with respect to this limited category of people, but we don't have sufficient detention facilities. Consequently, they are released on their own recognizance pending a hearing. They are expected to show up at the hearing. More often than not, they do not show up. They simply disappear into the fabric of America, gone for all time.

I can go on and on, but I think this gives an accurate view of what has become an extraordinarily dysfunctional immigration system, and it has also made me realize that while we need strong border enforcement, it alone is not the only solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

The House bill, which focuses only on enforcement and criminalization of undocumented aliens, isn't the solution. We need to be much more realistic and comprehensive.

I see the Democratic leader on the floor, and I would be happy to cease and desist for the moment if he wishes to speak.

Probably about 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. That is very generous of him.

Mr. President, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill, and I must tell you, I regret the way it was done. It was a kind of forced march, hour after hour of amendments on a bill that is very complicated, that I believe has actually come to the floor somewhat prematurely. I don't believe there is yet a consensus in this body, and I hope the debate that takes place can be a respectful debate so Members will feel free to open their minds and then to change them if the facts warrant that.

But this bill is a beginning. It seeks to address the overall problem in a much more comprehensive and practical way.

First with regard to border enforcement. The bill doubles the number of Border Patrol agents. It adds 12,000 over 5 years. Senator Kyl and I had testimony in the Terrorism and Technology Subcommittee from the head of Border Patrol that today there are 11,300 Border Patrol agents. This more than doubles that number over the next 5 years.

It also would add an additional 2,500 new ports of entry inspectors in this same period so that the ports of entry are strengthened and legal immigration is able to be handled in a more prompt manner.

It criminalizes the act of constructing or financing a tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States. Most people don't know this, but this has become a real problem. There are 40 such tunnels that have been built since 9/11, and the great bulk of them are on the southern border. Large-scale smuggling of drugs, weapons, and immigrants takes place today through these tunnels.

I recently visited a tunnel running from San Diego to Tijuana, and I was struck by the inordinate sophistication of the tunnel. It was a half mile long. It went 60 to 80 feet deep, 8 feet tall. It had a concrete floor. It was wired for electricity. It had drainage. At one end, 300 pounds of marijuana were found, and at the other end, 300 pounds of marijuana.

What was interesting is that the California entry into the tunnel was a very modern warehouse, a huge warehouse compartmented but empty and kept empty for a year. You went into one office, and there was a hatch in the floor. It looked much like the hatch which Saddam had secreted himself in. But when you lifted that hatch and you looked underground, you saw a very sophisticated tunnel. It went under other buildings all the way across the double fence into Mexico and up in Mexico in a building as well.

Today, interestingly enough, at this time, there is no law that makes building or financing such a tunnel a crime. A provision in this bill includes language from the Feinstein-Kyl Border Tunnel Prevention Act which would make the building or financing of a cross-border tunnel a crime punishable by up to 20 years.

This bill also authorizes additional unmanned aerial vehicles, modern cameras, sensors, and other new technologies to allow the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Department of Defense so the latter can carry out surveillance activities at the border to prevent illegal immigration. So this bill is very strong on border enforcement. But it doesn't just leave it there, as the majority leader's bill does. It says, that is only half the problem; you have to deal with the other half of the problem, and there is the rub. That is the difficult part, and that is the controversial part as well.

The bill we have from the Judiciary Committee seeks to remedy the very real needs of our economy which, as much as we might want to, cannot be ignored. Our global economy has changed the face of the American workforce. I am not going to comment on whether this is good or bad. In some cases, it is one or the other. In some cases, it is mixed. But the fact of the matter is the needs are different and the workforce is somewhat different.

Let me give you a large industry: Agriculture. There are about 1,600,000 workers in this country who work in agriculture. In my State, there are 566,000. I would hazard an informed guess that half of the 566,000 are here in undocumented status. I have had farmer after farmer, grower after grower tell me they cannot farm, they cannot grow without this workforce. I didn't believe it, so I got in touch with 58--we have 58 counties--58 welfare departments and asked them to post notices saying: Please, there are jobs in agriculture. Here is where to come. Here is to what expect. Guess what. Not a single person responded anywhere in the 58 counties of California.

That was pretty convincing evidence to me that Americans don't choose to do this work. It is the undocumented workforce who has been the mainstay of American agriculture, whether through the H-2A program coming cyclically or whether it is through a large contingent of undocumented workers who remain in this country year after year and do this work.

Under this program--and this was an amendment that I made after negotiations with Senator Craig who has been one of the Senate leaders on the agriculture jobs program--and I was very pleased to negotiate with him and very delighted to see that he really cared enough to spend the day Monday in the Judiciary Committee. Between us, and with the committee's help, we have worked out a program whereby an undocumented worker could apply for a blue card if that worker could demonstrate that he or she has worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays within the previous 2 years before December 31, 2005. After receiving blue cards, individuals who have then worked an additional period in American agriculture for 3 years, 150 workdays per year, or 100 workdays per year for 5 years, would be eligible for a green card. Their spouses could work, and their children could remain in the country with them.

What would be the result of this? The result is that American agriculture

would have a stable base of employment which is legal, which has the opportunity to bring people out of the shadows into the bright light of day, assume additional responsibilities, grow in the process, and raise their families. I think that is healthy for America, not unhealthy.

Also, we reform the current H-2A program, which is the agricultural guest worker program, which employs, I would say around 30,000 people and is used largely in the tobacco-producing States. The way this is reformed is it makes it easier for an employer to apply for workers through an attestation system, the paperwork is simpler, the housing requirements are changed to make it easier. In general, the bill updates the H-2A agricultural program.

Returning to the larger bill, I suppose the most contentious part is what should happen to the 12 million people who are living here in the shadows, undocumented. Many would say they are here illegally; they ought to go back. Well, they are not going to go back. They are going to remain living furtively, and they are going to remain in the shadows. And most of them work.

The question before this body is: Does that make sound public policy sense over a substantial period of time? These immigrants live furtively. They are subject to work abuse, exploitation, threats, and blackmail. This bill would provide them with an opportunity to come into the light of day. But it wouldn't be easy for them. It is not an amnesty. An amnesty is instant forgiveness with no conditions. There are conditions on this. They must pay a fine of $2,000, they must learn English, they must have paid all back taxes, and they must be evaluated as neither a criminal or a national security threat to this Nation.

Also, they would not go in front of anybody in the line. There are presently 3.3 million people waiting in other countries legally for green cards, and those people should and will be processed first. It is estimated it will take, believe it or not, up to 6 years to process 3.3 million. These workers, these undocumented 12 million would go at the end of that line, and then one by one, they would come through that line. If they have worked steadily for the 6-year period, if they can show they have paid all back taxes, if they have avoided any criminal convictions, if they have learned English in that time, they would be granted a green card. Therefore, they come out of a furtive lifestyle, hidden and in secret, living in fear that tomorrow they could or might be deported.

Over the years in the Senate, one of the things that we can do is put forward a private bill. If we see a family or an individual who we believe is an exceptional circumstance, we can try and get a private bill passed for them, and when we introduce the bill, their deportation is stayed. It is very hard to get a private bill through. Many Members don't do private bills. I met some of the families. I want to give you three cases that I think are eloquent testimony to what is happening amongst the 12 million.

Let me share with you a family. Their last name is Arreola. They live in Porterville, CA. I have filed a private immigration relief bill for them over 2 sessions. I didn't get the bill passed, but their deportation has been stayed. Mr. and Mrs. Arreola came to the United States from Mexico illegally in the 1980s to work in agriculture. They have five children, two brought to the United States as toddlers, and three born in the United States. They range from 8 years old today to 19, and they know no other home but this country.

Their eldest daughter, Nayely, is a bright, engaging student. I have met her and talked with her. She is the embodiment of the American dream and what can happen when we give children a chance to excel in a loving, nurturing environment. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to go to college. And on a full scholarship. She goes to Fresno Pacific University. Mrs. Arreola works as a produce packer and Mr. Arreola now has an appliance repair business. They have no criminal background. They own their home. They pay their taxes. For Nayely, this bill offers a glimmer of hope that her family, once and for all, can come out of the shadows. They don't have to have that daily fear of deportation. They have been here for 20 years. They are and will be legal, productive citizens.

One other example. Shigeru Yamada is a 21-year-old Japanese national living in Chula Vista, CA. He is facing removal from this country due to a tragic circumstance relating to the death of his mother. He entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the age of 10. He fled from an alcoholic father who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children, and even his own parents.

Tragically, Shigeru's mother was killed in a car crash in 1995, and he was orphaned at the age of 13. The death of his mother also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. He could not legalize his status. At the time of her death, his family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States.

In addition, his mother was also engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would have become an American citizen through this marriage. Instead, today, he is an illegal immigrant leading a model American life. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000. He has earned a number of awards, including being named an ``Outstanding English Student'' his freshman year. He is an All-American Scholar, and he is earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. He was vice president of the associated student body his senior year of high school. He is popular and he is trustworthy. He is an athlete. He was named the ``Most Inspirational Player of the Year'' in junior varsity baseball and football as well as varsity football. After graduating, he volunteered for 4 years to help coach the school's girl's softball team.

Sending him back to Japan today would be an enormous hardship. He doesn't speak the language. He is unaware of the Nation's cultural trends. He is American, raised here, educated here. He is one who is deserving, who would be helped by this legislation.

I see the minority leader, and I know he has a very busy agenda. Regretfully, I have a little bit more, so I will finish up.

Let me give a third example of the type and character of individuals that this bill would legalize. The Plascencias are Mexican nationals living in San Bruno, CA. They are undocumented. They face removal from the country due to the fact that they have received ineffective assistance of counsel. They have four children, all born in this country. The mother and father are subject to deportation; the children are not. They arrived in this country in 1988, and they have worked hard. Mrs. Plascencia studied English. She is now taking nursing classes at the College of San Mateo. She worked for 4 years in the oncology department of Kaiser Permanente Hospital, where she was a medical assistance.

Mr. Plascencia works at Vince's Shellfish Market. During the last 13 years he has worked his way up from part-time employee to his current supervisory position. He is now the foreman in charge of the packing department.

The Plascencia family has struggled to become legal residents for many years. Based on the advice of counsel, whom they were later forced to fire for gross incompetence, they applied for asylum. The application was denied, and they were placed in removal proceedings.

Their children--Christina, 13; Erika, 9; Alfredo, 7; and Daisy, 2-- are entitled to remain. Their eldest daughter, Christina, is enrolled in Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno, where she is an honor student. Erika and Alfredo are enrolled in Belle Air Elementary School. They are doing well. They have received praise from their teachers.

This family has worked hard to achieve the financial security their children now enjoy. This includes a home they purchased 3 years ago in San Bruno, CA. They own their car. They have medical insurance. And they have paid their taxes.

It is very clear to me and I think to a majority of Americans that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do much to enhance the

values we hold dear. So I believe that by presenting a pathway for the 12 million to become legal, this bill offers the only realistic option. Think about it. How do you find 12 million people, and what do you do when you find them, if you do? If brought across the border, they return the next day. This is their home. This is their work. There are no adequate facilities to detain them. And most, today, have become a vital and necessary part of the American workforce--in agriculture, in restaurants, in hotels, in landscaping, and throughout our economy.

We need to build a border infrastructure that is modern and effective. We can do that. Operation Gatekeeper has shown irrefutably we can, in fact, enforce our borders if we have the will to do so and we are willing to spend the money to do so. But we also need to find an orderly way to allow those people who are already here, who are embedded in our communities and in our workforce, to be able to continue to remain. This bill does that.

I know this is tough for everybody because I know emotions run high and it is really hard to change your mind on this subject because there are so many conflicting pressures. But we have an opportunity to chart a new destiny for a lot of people. We have an opportunity to do something which has a chance to work, which is real, which meets the needs of real people out there, and which can stop the illegal infusion through our borders in the future if we act wisely, well, and effectively.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to include in the Record an additional comment regarding the Combat Meth Act, which was passed into law earlier this year as part of the USA-PATRIOT Reauthorization Act.

While much has been said about the portions of this bill that address the national meth problem, I wish to highlight the commonsense approach this legislation provides for preventing the diversion of controlled substances.

The Controlled Substances Act requires its registrants to ensure that controlled substances do not fall into the wrong hands in the places where they are manufactured, distributed, or sold. To this end, it has always been the Drug Enforcement Administration's goal to encourage such registrants to investigate fully the backgrounds of potential employees who might have access to such substances, specifically for drug-related criminal convictions.

However, certain State and local privacy laws have had the potential to hamper this objective. These laws frustrate the purpose of the Controlled Substances Act and the objectives of the Drug Enforcement Administration by, among other things, purporting to prohibit registrants from asking questions relating to an applicant's experience with controlled substances, including whether they have been convicted of drug-related crimes. The real-world implication has been, in a word, nonsensical. In my own State of California, for example, there is a State law that provides that employers are not allowed to question a potential employee about certain drug-related criminal convictions that are older than 2 years. This prohibition also purports to cover employers who are registered under the Controlled Substances Act. If a registrant complied with this State law, it could mean that a responsible pharmacy could hire someone to work at the cash register who would be in a position to divert pharmaceutical products, and the employer would never have any clue about the applicant's past. This runs counter to the purpose of the Controlled Substances Act and undermines the DEA's efforts to prevent the unlawful diversion of controlled substances.

The law we passed clarifies once and for all that registrants can and should fully vet applicants, including asking them about any and all drug-related criminal convictions--not as an infringement on someone's privacy but as a safeguard to ensure that people with access to controlled substances do not pose risks to the public welfare. This legislation makes clear that those on the frontlines of preventing controlled substance diversion have a crucial tool they need to do their job.

Mr. President, I oppose this budget. This administration has chosen to continue down an unsustainable economic path. They have put forth an irresponsible budget that does not take constructive steps toward righting our Nation's fiscal course. I strongly urge my Senate colleagues not to follow suit.

Our Nation is going in the wrong direction. The signals grow more evident each day.

Deficits are at record levels. The debt is reaching astronomic heights. And we have fewer resources available for important domestic programs.

Under President Clinton, we had 4 years of budget surplus. And, when he left office, we had a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

But the economic policies of the past 5 years have produced a catastrophic turnaround. Record budget surpluses have given way to record deficits--projected at $1.6 trillion over the next decade. And the debt is projected to exceed $11 trillion.

This budget resolution assumes that the deficit will decline from $359 billion in FY 2007 to $177 billion in FY 2011. Unfortunately, these numbers don't tell the whole story.

This is a 5-year budget. This clouds the full impact of the administration's policies. The debt and deficit are set to explode in the out years--the end of the 10-year window. And, this does not even include the costs of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond 2007 and reforming the alternative minimum tax beyond 2006.

When all costs are included, this budget proposal will contribute $1.14 trillion to the Federal budget deficit over the next 5 years.

In this year alone, our national debt is slated to increase by $654 billion. This is a far cry from the President's goals for deficit reduction, and deeply troubling to those who value fiscal responsibility.

As a result, we are now again confronted with raising the nation's debt limit. The increase--from $8.2 trillion to roughly $9 trillion-- will be the fourth major hike in the last 5 years.

In 2000, our national debt was at $5.8 trillion. Today, this figure stands at $8.27 trillion. And, at this rate, with all costs included, debt will more than double to $12 trillion in 2011.

Additionally, more and more of our debt is being held in foreign hands. We now owe Japan $685 billion and China over $250 billion. It took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of foreign held debt. In only 5 years, President Bush has more than doubled that amount.

Contrast this with the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, where we

paid off more than $200 billion in debt to foreign countries.

These staggering figures represent a great burden for future generations who will have to pay the bill. They also keep interest rates high, limit economic growth, and slow job creation.

This President has the worst record of private sector job growth since Herbert Hoover. And the jobs that are created are largely minimum wage and temporary work. Americans are working harder, for less money. Average household income for working families decreased by $1,669 between 2000 and 2005, when adjusted for inflation.

By almost every indicator, American families are facing tough times: Housing affordability, a big problem in California, is at a 14-year low; Health care costs are up 50 percent since 2000; Gas prices are up 60 percent; College costs at public universities are up 57 percent; 45 million people are going without health care, including 6.6 million in California; and 37 million Americans are living in poverty, a number that has increased each year under this administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

You'd think that this budget would attempt to provide relief for most Americans. Instead middle-class families are asked to do more with less.

At the same time, the President is proposing to make tax breaks permanent for the wealthiest Americans--at a cost of $1.3 trillion over the next decade. And, when you combine the cost of the tax cuts with costs of war in Iraq--currently totaling $370 billion--the inevitable result is that critical domestic programs are squeezed.

The budget before the Senate today reflects these constraints by: Cutting food stamps, by $272 million; Cutting food assistance for seniors and children, by $111 million; Reducing the effectiveness of our police officers in cutting COPS by more than $407 million, 15,000 officers nationwide; Cutting $244 million from firefighter grants; Failing to reimburse state and local governments for the Federal responsibilities in paying for the incarceration of illegal immigrants; Cutting funding for 18 of the 19 National Institutes of Health, including those conducting research on cancer and heart disease; And, No Child Left Behind, the President's signature education program, would be underfunded this year by more than $15 billion and $55.78 billion since it was enacted.

These are vital priorities that must be funded.

Because of record federal deficits and debt, money that could have been available for education, healthcare, defense, infrastructure, job development, and homeland security, must now go to interest payments.

In 2006, interest costs alone on the national debt will total nearly $400 billion. And, this figure will grow to nearly $600 billion over the next 5 years. Total non-defense discretionary spending--$416 billion in this budget--is only modestly larger than this interest payment.

This could have been prevented.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that last year, economic problems caused only about 8 percent of the deficit. The rest resulted from policy choices by Congress and this administration--largely tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.

The time has come to chart a different course, and make the tough choices that the President and this resolution avoid.

We must adopt a balanced approach to both taxes and spending and return to a program of fiscal sanity.

When I first came to the Senate, over a decade ago, a small, bipartisan group decided to get our fiscal house in order. Democrats worked to bring spending under control. And Republicans pledged not to push for additional tax cuts.

I have no problem holding the line on spending, but believe that it must be done in the context of a more responsible approach to tax policy.

We must consider rolling back the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, to bring the income tax rate from its current 35 percent back to 38.6 percent.

This will affect those earning more than $312,000 per year--less than one percent of taxpayers--but will save nearly $130 billion over the next decade.

Finally, we need to work together to begin addressing some of the deeper structural problems with Social Security and Medicare--before these programs fall into crisis.

These are not easy answers. But, we must change the direction in which this nation is moving. We cannot afford to continue down this path of fiscal irresponsibility. Americans work hard to balance their checkbooks and live within their budgets. They deserve a Government willing to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Magistrate Judge Stephen Larson to a seat on the Federal District Court for the Central District of California in Riverside, CA.

Judge Larson comes to this nomination with a strong background of public service.

Since October 2000, Judge Larson has served as a magistrate judge for the Central District of California in Riverside. In the 10 years before becoming a magistrate judge, Larson served the public as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Central District of California, where he was chief of the U.S. Attorney Office's Organized Crime Strike Force and coordinator of its Russian Organized Crime Unit.

Judge Larson attended college here in Washington, at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, from which he received a bachelor's of science in 1986. Judge Larson returned to California for law school, graduating from the University of Southern California Law School in 1989.

The American Bar Association has unanimously declared Judge Larson to be ``well qualified,'' the ABA's highest rating.

Judge Larson has the strong support of California's Inland Empire. I have received endorsements of Judge Larson's nomination from a diverse cross-section of the Inland Empire's legal community: from judges and law professors, from government attorneys and private practitioners, and from Democrats and Republicans.

In these letters, Judge Larson is praised for his ``legal knowledge,'' ``fairness,'' ``integrity,'' ``hard work,'' ``temperament,'' ``intelligence,'' ``patience,'' and ``sense of social justice.''

Judge Larson was nominated through the bipartisan judicial selection process that we developed in California, a process which I believe is a model for the Nation. Under this system, a committee of lawyers including Democrats and Republicans recommends qualified, non- ideological applicants to the President.

Judge Larson's nomination through this process, along with his impressive record of public service, gives me confidence that he comes to the bench without an agenda and that he will serve the people of California and the Nation with wisdom, integrity, and humility.