Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005. I am joined by Senators Corzine and Durbin.

This bill would add the .50-caliber sniper rifle to the list of ``firearms'' governed by the National Firearms Act. This means that this weapon would be subject to the tax and registration rules imposed by the Internal Revenue Service under that Act. The practical effect would be that a transfer of such a weapon, by sale or by gift, would require registration pursuant to IRS regulations.

The bill would not ban any guns, and existing .50 caliber owners would be unaffected by this law until, and unless, they sell or give away their weapon.

I believe this is a reasonable compromise, respecting the rights of those who have followed the law, but making future changes in the law to regulate new .50-caliber guns.

.50-caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of companies, are deadly, military weapons, designed for combat with wartime enemies. They are capable of piercing light armor at more than four miles. The guns are designed to enable a single soldier to destroy enemy aircraft, HumVees, bunkers, fuel stations, and communication centers, as well as target and kill enemy personnel. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly.

This is a weapon designed to kill people efficiently, or destroy machinery, at a great distance. But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists around the world, and the potential for much worse.

These weapons are deadly accurate up to 6,000 feet. This means that a shooter using a .50-caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than a mile away. To further illustrate what this means, a shooter standing on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial can kill a person standing on the White House lawn, or shoot down the President's helicopter.

And the gun is effective at more than four miles. Although it may be hard to aim at this distance, the gun will still have its desired destructive effect. That means a shooter in Arlington Cemetery can send a bullet crashing into this building.

This is, of course, is using ordinary ammunition. I had one of my staff members obtain a blank .50-caliber bullet. I was amazed to see what was brought back. Senate rules forbid me from bringing the bullet to the floor, so I will describe it for my colleagues.

The casing for this bullet is about five inches in length, and three- quarters-of-an-inch in diameter. The entire round is almost as big as my hand.

But don't just take my word for it. Each one of my colleagues should examine these bullets for themselves. Take a look at the projectile these weapons fire. This is not a recreational gun that can be used for hunting.

This gun can be used by civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and aircraft--in fact, one advertisement for the gun promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars'' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars worth of cartridges.''

A recent CNN news report powerfully illustrates this issue. In one on-camera demonstration, a .50 caliber bullet is fired through the door of a commercial jetliner--it continues to blast through a steel plate. A marksman on the steps of the Capitol could bring down a plane coming into National Airport.

This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover General Accountability Office investigators, ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50-calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns.

A study by the GAO revealed some eye-opening facts about how and where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers, and violent criminals.

According to a special agent at ATF's Atlanta Field Division, the Barrett .50-caliber rifle is ``a tremendous threat'' for ``those most shocking and horrifying crimes, assassinations, murders, assaults on law enforcement officers.''

But these fears are not hypothetical. Recently we have learned that Al Qaeda has received .50-caliber sniper rifles--rifles that were manufactured right here in the United States. Nearly two years ago today, Essam al Ridi, an Al Qaeda associate, testified that he acquired 25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. We have no way of knowing whether Al Qaeda has obtained more or who has supplied them with these weapons, but we can be sure that any .50-caliber weapon in the hands of Al Qaeda will likely be used against Americans.

In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They were also charged with plotting to assassinate then-Governor Engler, Federal judges, and our colleague, Senator Levin. A .50-caliber sniper rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that included three illegal machine guns.

One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased ten of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns.

At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide.

The U.S. Air Force has studied the scenario of a potential terrorist attack with a .50-caliber weapon. According to a November 2001 article in the Air Force's official magazine, Airman, an anti-sniper assessment claimed that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase are as vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' because the weapons can shoot from beyond most airbase perimeters. The Air Force has addressed the issue and the effectiveness of specially-trained countersnipers to respond to a .50-caliber weapon attack on aircraft, fuel tanks, control towers, and personnel.

I am glad to know our military has given some consideration to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons, but I have real concerns over the threats posed to civilian aviation.

Our Nation's airports in no way match the security measure at Air Force bases. These commercial facilities handle millions of passengers and tons of cargo each day and are especially vulnerable to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons.

Experts have agreed that .50-caliber weapons aimed at a plane while stationary, or taking off or arriving, could be just as disastrous as a hit from a missile launcher. Gal Luff, Co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, has described .50-caliber weapons as ``lethal to slow moving planes.''

For further illustration of the potential destruction of these weapons, simply listen to the manufacturers themselves. According to a Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Model 82A1 .50-caliber sniper rifle brochure: ``The cost effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than ten U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.''

The Nordic Ammunition Company is the developer of the Raufoss multipurpose ammunition for .50-caliber weapons that combines armor- piercing, incendiary, and explosive features and was used by U.S. forces during the Gulf War. According to the company, the ammunition can ignite military jet fuel and has ``the equivalent firing power of a 20mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircrafts, light armor vehicles, ships, and light fortifications.''

Ammunition for these guns is also readily available in stores and on the Internet. This is perfectly legal. Even those categories which are illegal, such as the ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact can, according to a recent ``60 Minutes'' news report, be purchased online.

Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to shoot down a helicopter.

Current law classifies .50-caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. In other words, the law makes no distinction between the .22-caliber target rifle, a .30-06 caliber hunter's weapon, and this large-caliber combat weapon. Simply, I believe the law is wrong and needs to be changed.

This weapon is not in the same class as other rifles. Its power and range are of an order of magnitude higher.

Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly- regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many States allow possession of .50-caliber guns by those as young as 14-years old, and there is no regulation on second-hand sales.

Just this past year, the RAND Corporation released a report which identified eleven potential terrorist scenarios at Los Angeles International Airport. In one scenario, ``a sniper, using a .50 caliber rifle, fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.'' The report concludes: ``we were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions'' for such an attack.

Last June, a Department of Homeland Security representative told the Dallas Morning News that ``we remain concerned about any weapon of choice that could potentially be used by a terrorist, including a .50- caliber rifle.'' I think the Department's concerns are well founded.

The bottom line is that the .50-caliber sniper weapon represents a national security threat requiring action by Congress.

This is a weapon which should not be available to terrorists and criminals, and should be responsibly controlled through carefully crafted regulation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and commemorate April 24, 2005, the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide and to urge all Americans to join together to ensure that these crimes never happen again.

On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire began arresting hundreds of Armenian intellectuals, most of whom were subsequently executed. What soon followed can only be described as a tragedy that shocked the human conscience: by some estimates, over a million Armenians were killed, and another 500,000 were driven from their homes. These events marked the 20th century's first experience with such atrocities, and, sadly, they would not be the last.

Maya Angelou, the famous poet and civil rights activist once said:

History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but

if faced with courage, need not be lived again.

Indeed it is our duty to remember this horrific tragedy, and face the crimes of humanity with unflinching determination, courage, and moral fortitude so that they never happen again.

As a country founded on the principles of justice, equality, and liberty, the United States must take a leadership role in preventing genocide.

I am proud that the Armenian American community in my home State of California--over 500,000 strong--has taken such a leadership role in ensuring that the U.S. lives up to its values by acknowledging the crimes of the past and taking action against the crimes of the present and future. Their determination and perseverance is a testament to the human spirit and the ability to overcome injustice and build a better tomorrow.

Today, we stand with the Armenian American community in commemorating the start of the Armenian Genocide, and together we stand with those around the world who face persecution and even death simply because of who they are. They must know they are not alone and those who commit these crimes must know we are watching.

We will never forget the Armenian Genocide as we look to the future with courage and determination.

Mr. President, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I wish to make a few comments both about Ambassador John Negroponte and also LTG Michael Hayden. He is soon to be General Hayden, I understand.

I certainly will. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

I know General Hayden will be a four-star general very shortly. I think that is very good news. So we will have the first Director and Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

I believe these are both excellent nominees. They will provide strong new overall management and leadership to the intelligence community as it finally adapts to post-Cold War realities.

Ambassador Negroponte has served with distinction, both in Washington and around the globe. He served as United States Ambassador to four nations and to the United Nations. As Deputy National Security Adviser, Ambassador Negroponte was intimately involved in the formation and use of intelligence. He is well suited to overseeing the collection of vital intelligence needed for the United States to protect itself. Ambassador Negroponte comes to this new position without strong ties or bias to any specific intelligence agency. That is an enormous strength, and I believe he will be an honest broker and manager for the community. He has pledged that he will be a neutral and apolitical provider of intelligence to Government policymakers.

Although General Hayden's nomination is not before us at this time, I wish to say I hold him in the highest regard. He is a skilled manager and an expert in the workings of our Nation's intelligence apparatus. General Hayden led a remarkable turnaround of an enormously complex and technical agency, the National Security Agency. He was first made Director of the NSA under President Clinton and has had his tour extended three times by President Bush. That is a true testament to his leadership. He has proven his ability to establish a skilled and dedicated workforce. In short, General Hayden is a strong choice to be the day-to-day manager of the intelligence community.

Both men have the strength, the vision, and the determination that is necessary to be successful in their new positions.

As my colleagues know, I introduced legislation to create a DNI in the 107th Congress and again in the 108th Congress. So I was pleased to see that with the support of the 9/11 Commission and the chairs and ranking members of the Intelligence and Governmental Affairs Committees, this position was finally established.

As Director and Deputy Director of National Intelligence, these appointees face daunting challenges. The 15 intelligence agencies are a community in name only. The fiefdoms and turf battles--the stovepipes-- between agencies may have lessened since September 11, but they continue to hinder our intelligence operations.

Our technical means for collecting intelligence must be adapted to this new nonstate terrorist world and its challenges. The acquisition and development of new intelligence systems need better management.

The demands for better human intelligence are well documented by reports, including the Congressional Joint Inquiry, our Intelligence Committee's Iraq study, the 9/11 Commission, and the President's own WMD Commission. Each of these reports

spells out, in stark terms, the organizational, the leadership, and the capability challenges that await Director Negroponte and General Hayden.

The U.S. intelligence estimates of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were, as the WMD Commission stated, ``dead wrong'' before the war. There was a lack of solid intelligence, made worse by fundamental and inexcusable lapses in tradecraft and judgment. The systematic failings will take sustained leadership and vigorous oversight to correct.

Our intelligence capabilities in other crucial areas--Iran and North Korea among them--are still inadequate and unacceptable. As the war and postwar operations in Iraq show dramatically and tragically, we cannot govern effectively and cannot make informed decisions without timely and accurate intelligence. We cannot afford to fail again. The stakes are very large, indeed.

Thankfully, the recent Commission and Senate reports have also made important recommendations. Both Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden have expressed willingness to make important changes. They will take steps to integrate and bolster intelligence collection and to end ``group think'' and untested assumptions. They will use red teams and alternative analysis when intelligence conflicts. This was a substantial lacking that led to the wrong judgments made in the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate that so many of us relied upon to make our judgment on how to vote to authorize the President with use of force in Iraq.

The Director also has the authority to put in place a management team and implement changes, including new mission managers and new centers, to focus attention on the most pressing problems.

I believe strongly it is going to take a strong and authoritative Director of National Intelligence to put our intelligence community back on the right track. Equally important, it will take forthright and impeccably objective leaders to restore the credibility both to the American people and to the world that was destroyed by the assessments of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The legislation that created the DNI last year, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, spells out the framework for a strong DNI, but it did not fill in the details. The authorities and responsibilities that should have been made clear in law, I believe, will have to be instead established in practice. I have discussed privately and through the confirmation hearing process with Ambassador Negroponte the need for him to assert authority by taking bold action to lead and manage the intelligence community, and I will support him in doing so.

I have confidence the new Director shares this vision and will take the necessary steps immediately after taking office. General Hayden, with his experience in fighting these battles as Director of NSA, will be a key adviser and ally in fulfilling this charge.

The men and women who work for the 15 intelligence agencies are skilled and dedicated, but they need innovative, new tools and ways of doing business to meet our future strategic intelligence needs. I am confident that Director Negroponte and Deputy Director Hayden will work to provide these needs.

I thank the President for forwarding such skilled, nonpartisan nominees, and I wholeheartedly support their confirmation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to oncology nurses. May 1 marks the beginning of the 10th annual Oncology Nursing Day and Month and this year marks the

30th Anniversary of the Oncology Nursing Society.

As co-chair of the Senate Cancer Coalition, I would like to recognize that oncology nurses play an important and essential role in providing quality, comprehensive cancer care. These nurses are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side-effects patients experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer--or who has a loved one who has been treated--will tell you, oncology nurses provide quality clinical, psychosocial and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our Nation's cancer care delivery system.

The Oncology Nursing Society is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 31,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. Since 1975, the Oncology Nursing Society has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care.

The Oncology Nursing Society has 19 chapters in my home State of California, which support our oncology nurses in their ongoing efforts to provide outstanding quality cancer care to patients and their families throughout our State.

Cancer is a complex, multifaceted and chronic disease. Each year in the United States, approximately 1.37 million people are diagnosed with cancer, another 570,000 lose their battles with this terrible disease, and more than 8 million Americans count themselves among a growing community known as cancer survivors.

In 2005, the American Cancer Society estimates that in the State of California there will be 135,030 new cancer diagnoses, and 56,090 cancer deaths. At the same time, in 2005, the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, estimates that in the State of California there will be a shortage of 18,409 nurses or a ten percent unmet need for nurses overall.

We must do more as a Nation to prevent and reduce suffering from cancer and to support the oncology nursing workforce.

Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment.

Over the last ten years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all cancer patients receive care in community settings, including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Oncology nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment, and they are the front-line providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side-effects, and providing counseling to patients and family members.

I thank all of our Nation's oncology nurses for their dedication to our Nation's cancer patients, especially those who care for cancer patients in California. I commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 30 years and congratulate its leaders and members on its 30th Anniversary. The Oncology Nursing Society has contributed immensely to the quality and accessibility of care for all cancer patients and their families, and I urge my colleagues to support the Society and oncology nurses in their important endeavors.

Mr. President, today Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter, Harkin and I are introducing legislation to ban human reproductive cloning, while ensuring that important medical research goes forward under strict oversight by the federal government.

Simply put, this legislation will enable research to be conducted that provides hope to millions of Americans suffering from paralysis and debilitating diseases including Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease.

Every member of this body knows someone--whether it's a parent or grandparent, a child or a friend--who suffers from one of these diseases. That is why this legislation is so critical. We must act now to protect promising research that will bring hope to those who suffer.

I now that every member of this body would agree that human reproductive cloning is immoral and unethical. It should be outlawed by Congress and the President. That is exactly what this bill does.

It prohibits any person from conducting or attempting to clone a human being. It also prohibits shipping materials for the purpose of human cloning in interstate or foreign commerce and prohibits the export of an unfertilized blastocyst to a foreign country if such country does not prohibit human cloning.

Any person that violates this prohibition is subject to harsh criminal and civil penalties. They include: imprisonment of up to 10 years in federal prison.

Fines of up to $1 million or three times the gross profits resulting from the violation, whichever is greater.

This legislation draws a bright line between human reproductive cloning and promising medical research using somatic cell nuclear transplantation for the sole purpose of deriving embryonic stem cells.

Somatic cell nuclear transplantation is the process by which scientists derive embryonic stem cells that are an exact genetic match as the patient. Those embryonic stem cells will one day be used to correct defective cells such as non-insulin producing or cancerous cells. Then those patients will not be forced to take immuno- suppressive drugs and risk the chances of rejection since the new cells will contain their own DNA.

It is truly astonishing that somatic cell nuclear transplantation research may one day be used to regrow tissue or organs that could lead to treatments and cures for diseases that afflict up to 100 million Americans. What we are talking about here is research that does not even involve sperm and an egg.

I believe it is essential that this research be conducted with Federal Government oversight and under strict ethical requirements.

That is why the legislation: Mandates that eggs used in this research be unfertilized.

Prohibits the purchase or sale of unfertilized eggs--to prevent ``embryo farms'' or the possible exploitation of women.

Imposes strong ethics rules on scientists, mandating informed consent by egg donors, and include safety and privacy protections.

Prohibit any research on an unfertilized blastocyst after 14 days-- After 14 days, an unfertilized blastocyst begins differentiating into a specific type of cell such as a heart or brain cell and is no longer useful for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research.

Requires that all egg donations be voluntary, and that there is no financial or other incentive for egg donations.

Requires that nuclear transportation occur in labs completely separate from labs that engage in in vitro fertilization.

And for those who violate or attempt to violate the ethical requirements of the legislation, they will be subject to civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation.

Embryonic stem cell research that is currently being done using private funds, in animal models, and by scientists overseas continues to show great promise and potential. This progress will not be sustained in the U.S. without additional stem cell lines for federally- funded research and without strict federal oversight of this research.

Senator Hatch and I have argued this point for years. What has happened since the President limited federally-funded research to only those embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to August 9, 2001?

Researchers have made a number of advancements confirming the promise of embryonic stem cells using animal models and private research dollars. In the absence of federal policy on embryonic stem cell research and human reproductive cloning, States have taken action creating a patchwork of state laws under varying ethical frameworks. Fewer researchers are choosing to go into this field given the void created by Federal inaction.

Last January, a study published by researchers from the University of California San Diego and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies confirmed that all 22 existing federally-approved stem cell lines are tainted by mouse feeders cells and cannot be used in humans.

Researchers at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, MA, used embryonic stem cells created by somatic cell nuclear transplantation to cure a genetic defect in mice.

Researchers at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York found that embryonic stem cells produce proteins

that can help ailing organs repair themselves.

Stanford scientists were able to relieve diabetes symptoms in mice by using special chemicals to transform undifferentiated embryonic stem cells of mice into cell masses that resemble islets found in the mouse pancreas.

In the absence of federal legislation, we have seen a patchwork of State laws under varying ethical frameworks and this is extremely worrisome. In total, 30 States have passed laws pertaining to stem cell research and there is tremendous variety in those laws.

California launched a $3 billion initiative to fund embryonic stem cell research including somatic cell nuclear transplantation research which bans human reproductive cloning.

At least 6 academic centers in California including UC San Francisco, Stanford, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine and UC Davis have already begun developing facilities where this embryonic stem cell research will be conducted and are all actively recruiting stem cell biologists from across the country.

New Jersey has proposed a $380 million initiative to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Wisconsin has proposed investing $750 million to support embryonic stem cell research.

By contrast, Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Michigan have specifically prohibited nuclear transfer used to create stem cells. And 22 other States have enacted laws on the matter.

What this means is researchers and research money are now moving to States with pro-research laws and pro-research Governors.

There is clearly a void that needs to be filled--and it can only be filled by the Federal Government.

To be clear, this is research that involves an unfertilized blastocyst. No sperm are involved. It is conducted in a petri dish and cannot occur beyond 14 days. It is also prohibited from ever being implanted into a woman to create a child.

For those who believe that the clump of cells in a petri dish that we are talking about is a human life, that is a moral decision each person must make for himself, but to impose that view on the more than 100 million of our parents, children and friends who suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer is immoral.

As former Senator and Episcopal minister John C. Danforth said recently in an op-ed in the New York Times, ``Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

This is exactly why the legislation I am introducing with my colleagues Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter and Harkin is needed. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill and help turn the hopes of millions of Americans into reality.

I ask unanimous consent that the attached letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Corzine, Leahy, Cantwell, Collins, Durbin, Schumer and Jeffords to close the SUV loophole.

This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would close the ``SUV Loophole'' and require that SUVs meet the same fuel efficiency standards as passenger cars by 2011.

Crude oil prices remain above $50/barrel. On April 1, 2005, crude oil prices hit a record high of $57.70/barrel. Prices at the gas pump continue to soar as well. Today, the average price for regular gasoline was $2.24 per gallon. In California, the average price is almost $2.60.

This is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S.

India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely.

This legislation is an important first step to limit our nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment.

If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 1 million barrels of oil a day and reduce our dependence on oil imports by 10 percent.

Prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from entering the atmosphere each year.

Save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.

CAFE Standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars.

Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.

The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2011 that passenger cars meet today.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, has proposed phasing in an increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks under the following schedule: by 2005, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 21.0 miles per gallon; by 2006, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 21.6 miles per gallon; and by 2007, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 22.2 miles per gallon.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks.

In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said.

With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so: by model year 2008, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 23.5 miles per gallon; by model year 2009, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 24.8 miles per gallon; by model year 2010, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 26.1 miles per gallon, by model year 2011, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon.

This legislation would do two other things: it would mandate that by 2008 the average fuel economy of the new vehicles comprising the Federal fleet must be 3 miles per gallon higher than the baseline average fuel economy for that class. And by 2011, the average fuel economy of the new federal vehicles must be 6 miles per gallon higher than the baseline average fuel economy for that class.

The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.

We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming.

We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States.

Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe.

It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy.

And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector.

The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly.

Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent.

On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year.

The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.

We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter, Harkin and I are introducing legislation to ban human reproductive cloning, while ensuring that important medical research goes forward under strict oversight by the federal government.

Simply put, this legislation will enable research to be conducted that provides hope to millions of Americans suffering from paralysis and debilitating diseases including Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease.

Every member of this body knows someone--whether it's a parent or grandparent, a child or a friend--who suffers from one of these diseases. That is why this legislation is so critical. We must act now to protect promising research that will bring hope to those who suffer.

I now that every member of this body would agree that human reproductive cloning is immoral and unethical. It should be outlawed by Congress and the President. That is exactly what this bill does.

It prohibits any person from conducting or attempting to clone a human being. It also prohibits shipping materials for the purpose of human cloning in interstate or foreign commerce and prohibits the export of an unfertilized blastocyst to a foreign country if such country does not prohibit human cloning.

Any person that violates this prohibition is subject to harsh criminal and civil penalties. They include: imprisonment of up to 10 years in federal prison.

Fines of up to $1 million or three times the gross profits resulting from the violation, whichever is greater.

This legislation draws a bright line between human reproductive cloning and promising medical research using somatic cell nuclear transplantation for the sole purpose of deriving embryonic stem cells.

Somatic cell nuclear transplantation is the process by which scientists derive embryonic stem cells that are an exact genetic match as the patient. Those embryonic stem cells will one day be used to correct defective cells such as non-insulin producing or cancerous cells. Then those patients will not be forced to take immuno- suppressive drugs and risk the chances of rejection since the new cells will contain their own DNA.

It is truly astonishing that somatic cell nuclear transplantation research may one day be used to regrow tissue or organs that could lead to treatments and cures for diseases that afflict up to 100 million Americans. What we are talking about here is research that does not even involve sperm and an egg.

I believe it is essential that this research be conducted with Federal Government oversight and under strict ethical requirements.

That is why the legislation: Mandates that eggs used in this research be unfertilized.

Prohibits the purchase or sale of unfertilized eggs--to prevent ``embryo farms'' or the possible exploitation of women.

Imposes strong ethics rules on scientists, mandating informed consent by egg donors, and include safety and privacy protections.

Prohibit any research on an unfertilized blastocyst after 14 days-- After 14 days, an unfertilized blastocyst begins differentiating into a specific type of cell such as a heart or brain cell and is no longer useful for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research.

Requires that all egg donations be voluntary, and that there is no financial or other incentive for egg donations.

Requires that nuclear transportation occur in labs completely separate from labs that engage in in vitro fertilization.

And for those who violate or attempt to violate the ethical requirements of the legislation, they will be subject to civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation.

Embryonic stem cell research that is currently being done using private funds, in animal models, and by scientists overseas continues to show great promise and potential. This progress will not be sustained in the U.S. without additional stem cell lines for federally- funded research and without strict federal oversight of this research.

Senator Hatch and I have argued this point for years. What has happened since the President limited federally-funded research to only those embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to August 9, 2001?

Researchers have made a number of advancements confirming the promise of embryonic stem cells using animal models and private research dollars. In the absence of federal policy on embryonic stem cell research and human reproductive cloning, States have taken action creating a patchwork of state laws under varying ethical frameworks. Fewer researchers are choosing to go into this field given the void created by Federal inaction.

Last January, a study published by researchers from the University of California San Diego and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies confirmed that all 22 existing federally-approved stem cell lines are tainted by mouse feeders cells and cannot be used in humans.

Researchers at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, MA, used embryonic stem cells created by somatic cell nuclear transplantation to cure a genetic defect in mice.

Researchers at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York found that embryonic stem cells produce proteins

that can help ailing organs repair themselves.

Stanford scientists were able to relieve diabetes symptoms in mice by using special chemicals to transform undifferentiated embryonic stem cells of mice into cell masses that resemble islets found in the mouse pancreas.

In the absence of federal legislation, we have seen a patchwork of State laws under varying ethical frameworks and this is extremely worrisome. In total, 30 States have passed laws pertaining to stem cell research and there is tremendous variety in those laws.

California launched a $3 billion initiative to fund embryonic stem cell research including somatic cell nuclear transplantation research which bans human reproductive cloning.

At least 6 academic centers in California including UC San Francisco, Stanford, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine and UC Davis have already begun developing facilities where this embryonic stem cell research will be conducted and are all actively recruiting stem cell biologists from across the country.

New Jersey has proposed a $380 million initiative to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Wisconsin has proposed investing $750 million to support embryonic stem cell research.

By contrast, Arkansas, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Michigan have specifically prohibited nuclear transfer used to create stem cells. And 22 other States have enacted laws on the matter.

What this means is researchers and research money are now moving to States with pro-research laws and pro-research Governors.

There is clearly a void that needs to be filled--and it can only be filled by the Federal Government.

To be clear, this is research that involves an unfertilized blastocyst. No sperm are involved. It is conducted in a petri dish and cannot occur beyond 14 days. It is also prohibited from ever being implanted into a woman to create a child.

For those who believe that the clump of cells in a petri dish that we are talking about is a human life, that is a moral decision each person must make for himself, but to impose that view on the more than 100 million of our parents, children and friends who suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer is immoral.

As former Senator and Episcopal minister John C. Danforth said recently in an op-ed in the New York Times, ``Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.

This is exactly why the legislation I am introducing with my colleagues Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Specter and Harkin is needed. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill and help turn the hopes of millions of Americans into reality.

I ask unanimous consent that the attached letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Corzine, Leahy, Cantwell, Collins, Durbin, Schumer and Jeffords to close the SUV loophole.

This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would close the ``SUV Loophole'' and require that SUVs meet the same fuel efficiency standards as passenger cars by 2011.

Crude oil prices remain above $50/barrel. On April 1, 2005, crude oil prices hit a record high of $57.70/barrel. Prices at the gas pump continue to soar as well. Today, the average price for regular gasoline was $2.24 per gallon. In California, the average price is almost $2.60.

This is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S.

India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely.

This legislation is an important first step to limit our nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment.

If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 1 million barrels of oil a day and reduce our dependence on oil imports by 10 percent.

Prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from entering the atmosphere each year.

Save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.

CAFE Standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars.

Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.

The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2011 that passenger cars meet today.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, has proposed phasing in an increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks under the following schedule: by 2005, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 21.0 miles per gallon; by 2006, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 21.6 miles per gallon; and by 2007, SUVs and light trucks would have to average 22.2 miles per gallon.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks.

In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said.

With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so: by model year 2008, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 23.5 miles per gallon; by model year 2009, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 24.8 miles per gallon; by model year 2010, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 26.1 miles per gallon, by model year 2011, SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon.

This legislation would do two other things: it would mandate that by 2008 the average fuel economy of the new vehicles comprising the Federal fleet must be 3 miles per gallon higher than the baseline average fuel economy for that class. And by 2011, the average fuel economy of the new federal vehicles must be 6 miles per gallon higher than the baseline average fuel economy for that class.

The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.

We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming.

We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States.

Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe.

It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy.

And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector.

The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly.

Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent.

On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year.

The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.

We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

I object.

Yes, I object.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life and work of Marla Ruzicka, a remarkable woman and humanitarian who was killed last Saturday in a car bomb blast in Baghdad.

My thoughts and prayers go out to her parents, Cliff and Nancy, her siblings, and her friends and coworkers. She will be sorely missed.

Born and raised in Lakeport, CA, Marla dedicated her life to helping the innocent victims of war who needed a voice and needed a champion.

She traveled to war zones like Afghanistan and Iraq on her own and at her own risk to document civilian casualties and find ways to provide the needed humanitarian assistance.

Two years ago, at the age of 26, she founded the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict to ``mitigate the impact of the conflict and its aftermath on the people of Iraq by ensuring that timely and effective life-saving assistance is provided to those in need''.

A tireless and relentless advocate for her cause, she talked to anyone who would listen and would win over doubters with her smile, kindness, and compassion.

In fact, in no small part to her own initiative, she helped convince Congress and the U.S. military to provide $30 million for innocent victims of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, something that had not been accomplished before.

Few have done so much and helped so many at such a young age.

Her father said he would remember her as a ``lady with a tremendously open heart and warm feelings toward the people who've been in conflict and war.''

As we mourn the loss of a loving and caring American, let us also celebrate the life of Marla Ruzicka and rededicate ourselves to the cause she personified. In her memory, let us reach out to Afghan and Iraqi civilians who have suffered in silence and be their voice and champion.

I can think of no finer tribute.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate El Camino Real High School of Woodland Hills, CA, on winning the prestigious U.S. Academic Decathlon for a second year in a row an astonishing achievement for all the students, teachers, and parents involved.

Each year, the U.S. Academic Decathlon brings together some of our Nation's brightest students for 2 days of competition on a broad range of subjects including mathematics, literature, economics, art, science, and music. I am very proud to report that

in the 24 years of this competition, schools representing California have finished first or second every year except for one.

El Camino's tremendous victory represents an incredible fourth title in the last 8 years. Only one other school in the Nation has been more successful. El Camino is the first school to win back-to-back championships since their fellow Californians, Palo Alto High School, achieved that distinction in 1982 and 1983.

This triumph is the result of much effort and sacrifice. These amazingly dedicated students have given up spring and summer vacations and spent up to 10 hours a day preparing. Their hard work and commitment have certainly paid great dividends.

El Camino finished first with 49,009 points out of a possible 60,000, beating their nearest opponent by 723, and were led by their top scorer--Laura Descher.

It is important to note that the Academic Decathlon is set up to award versatility and breadth of knowledge, requiring each student to prepare for all the various academic events. This means that each student has developed a diverse and robust degree of scholarship rather than just specializing in one given topic.

The nine students whose effort and determination have made our State so proud are Micah Roth, Benjamin Farahmand, Jihwan Kim, Lindsey Cohen, Laura Descher, Lindsay Gibbs, Sean Follmer, Brian Hwang, and Kevin Rosenberg.

A great deal of the credit must be given to the dedicated coaches-- Christian Cerone and Lissa Gregorio. This whole experience has certainly been just as memorable for them as it has for their students.

Of course, no congratulations would be complete without mentioning the contributions of the parents and family members who have been there each step of the way to cheer these young people on and support them in their lofty goals.

Again, I congratulate El Camino Real High School on this great achievement and wish all the students involved continued success in whatever they decide to do. You have made your State, your parents, your school, and your Senator very proud.

Mr. President, I would like to express my opposition to the AgJOBS bill as it is currently drafted.

This is a very complicated bill. It is a magnet for illegal immigration. It has not been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. We do not know how many people would be affected by it.

Rather, it has come to the floor as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill.

This is not the place for this bill. I believe it is a mistake to pass this bill on an emergency supplemental that is designed to provide help for our military, fighting in extraordinary circumstances.

That is why I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Cornyn saying that the place to do these amendments is through the regular order, beginning in the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. This amendment passed by a vote of 61 to 38.

And that is why I will vote against cloture on the AgJOBS bill and on the other complicated immigration amendment, the Chambliss-Kyl amendment.

If, however, cloture is invoked, then I plan on offering several amendments that I believe will improve the bill.

If these amendments are approved by the full body, or are later incorporated into the bill through an appropriate Judiciary Committee markup, then I would be prepared to support the bill.

But otherwise, it is my intention to vote against the bill. I simply cannot support the bill in good conscience as it is.

I believe the bill as drafted is a huge magnet. The Judiciary Committee has

not had a chance to review it, amend it, mark it up. And it does not belong on a supplemental appropriations bill.

We know that people come to this country illegally.

They come for many different reasons. Some out of fear of persecution, some for work, all for opportunity.

In 2000, it was estimated that there were 7 million unauthorized aliens in this country. And by 2002, this number had grown to 9.3 million. These are Census numbers reported in the CRS Report on Immigration, updated 4/08/05.

In agriculture, approximately 1.25 million, or about 50 percent of the agricultural work force, are illegal workers--600,000 of whom live and work in California. These numbers are from the Department of Labor.

Many of these workers have been here for years, have worked hard, brought their families here, and have built their lives here.

With respect to agricultural work, I know that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to get Americans to work in agricultural labor.

I did not believe it. Several years ago we contacted every welfare office in the State. And every welfare office in the State told us that once they put a sign up, no one responded.

So I think it is the right thing to do to give the workers who have been here for a substantial period of time, who have been working in agriculture, who have been good members of society, and who will continue to work in agriculture, a way to adjust their status.

What I do not support is creating a magnet that draws large additional numbers of illegal immigration. Not only would this have a detrimental effect on our society, but it would harm the people we are trying to help through this bill.

Here is why: An influx in illegal immigrants would flood the labor market, make jobs more difficult to find, and drive down wages.

For those of you who doubt the magnet effect, you have only to examine what happened when President Bush announced his guest worker proposal early last year.

Despite the fact that the President's proposal had no path to legalization, the mere announcement of the proposal fueled a rush along the Southwest border.

The Los Angeles Time on May 16, 2004, reported: ``detentions of illegal immigrants along the border . . . have risen 30% over the first seven months of the fiscal year, a period that includes the four months since Bush announced his plan.''

Similarly, the San Diego Union Tribune on January 27, 2004, reported: ``U.S. Border Patrol officials report a 15 percent increase in the use of fraudulent documents at the world's busiest land border crossing [San Ysidro]. And more than half of those caught using phony documents say the president's offer of de facto amnesty motivated them to attempt to sneak into the United States.''

Does anyone doubt that this increase was related to anything but the President's proposal? Of course not.

When I raised the concern with the authors of the legislation, that this legislation would be a magnet that would attract large numbers, they seemed to believe that the fact that the bill only applies to those who were in this country and working in agriculture as of December 31, 2004, would be sufficient to deter people from illegal entry.

I do not believe that is the case. I think people will see that they only need 100 days of work to qualify for temporary residence; they will not be deterred by the operative date, and will say, ``I'll find a job, work 100 days, and then I'm legal and can bring my family.''

The first two of these amendments I would like to offer would increase the time someone must demonstrate he or she has been in the United States working in agriculture in order to qualify for temporary and permanent residence.

This would discourage others from coming to this country, and help those who have been here for many years.

Here is what the first amendment would do. In order to qualify for temporary residence, workers would have to demonstrate that they have worked for at least three years in agricultural work prior to December 31, 2004.

For each of the 3 years, the worker would be required to show 100 work-days, or 575 hours, per year in agriculture.

Here is what the second amendment would do. In order to qualify for permanent residence, a green card, workers would have to show that they have worked at least 5 years in agricultural work following enactment of the bill. For each of the five years, the worker would again have to demonstrate 100 work-days, or 575 hours, per year.

So by extending the length of time a worker needs to have worked both in the past and the future, these amendments reduce the incentives for more illegal immigration.

The next amendment addresses another major concern that I have.

The bill currently allows someone with one or two misdemeanor criminal convictions in the United States to apply for temporary residence or a green card. I think this is a mistake.

So the amendment I am offering strikes this language and ensures that those with criminal records do not qualify for benefits--if they have even one criminal conviction in the United States, or anywhere.

I believe that no one who has a criminal conviction should be the recipient of temporary residence or a green card under this program.

Misdemeanors include petty theft, simple assault against persons, driving under the influence, certain drug offenses, and misdemeanor battery.

In some States, they include cases of child abuse or domestic abuse, public assistance fraud, or abandonment of a child under the age of 10.

I do not believe we should allow anyone to apply for a benefit as significant as a green card under this bill if they have committed any crime, let alone the two misdemeanors that the bill currently allows.

The final amendment I am offering would prohibit workers who are living outside the United States from applying for temporary residence under this bill.

The bill allows those living in other countries to apply for benefits under this bill--as long as they can demonstrate the appropriate time spent in agricultural work in the United States prior to their departure from this country.

This means that someone could come to the United States illegally, work here illegally, return to their home country, and still apply for a green card under this bill. This simply makes no sense.

If we are going to give agricultural workers a way to adjust their status, let us limit it to those who are living and working in this country.

California is the No. 1 agriculture-producing State in the Nation.

I recognize that this status is based on the hard work of people who have been living on the edges of our society, living in fear, and constantly worried about being removed from this country.

It is time for the Government to recognize that these people have made a substantial contribution to our country and offer them a way to adjust their status.

Remember, there are already 1.25 million agricultural workers here illegally, 600,000 in California.

These amendments would concentrate on their adjustment of status, thereby moving the workers and their families from the shadows and allowing them temporary, and subsequently, permanent legal status.

But I think that we have to be careful in how we proceed--if we do it the right way, we can help those who have been working in agriculture for many years and who have been good, upstanding members of society.

These are the people we should be trying to help: They have children, many of whom are born here and are U.S. citizens. They have paid taxes. Some have bought homes. They have worked hard for everything they have gotten. They have been good, productive members of society.

But if we do it the wrong way--we will actually cause great harm to the agriculture workers who have been here for years--we will create a magnet, flooding the borders, pushing down wages, and making it more difficult to find work.

These are simple, commonsense amendments.

As I said before, I would have preferred to do this in committee where we could have the time necessary to consider such complicated legislation.

But if we are to pass an agricultural workers bill, let it be one that helps those who have contributed to our society and one that will not cause great harm to our Nation.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for authoring this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I agree with all the comments he has made. I believe it is a huge mistake to bypass the Judiciary Committee, to bypass the Immigration Subcommittee on bills that are big in their ramifications on the United States of America.

If we do that, we will get into a debate on the floor on the AgJOBS bill. I think very few people know, for example, that the way the bill is written you can have two misdemeanor convictions and essentially still get a temporary green card. That can be misdemeanor theft. That can be misdemeanor battery. That can be misdemeanor drugs. I will have an amendment to address that. I will take some time with it.

Most people do not know you just have to have 100 hours of work in a 12-month period. I will have an amendment to address that, and there will be other amendments to address that. But this is a very controversial bill that can have a huge impact on the number of people coming across the border. At the very least, it should have a markup in Judiciary. We should have an opportunity to make amendments in Judiciary before it comes to the floor of the Senate as an amendment on an appropriations bill.

There is also the REAL ID bill, which very well may come up. Senator Mikulski has an amendment on H-2B. I am concerned about it because it does not have a cap on the number, and the H-2B quota has been reached. I believe it is 66,000. Maryland has some problems, which are valid problems, I am sure. But just to open the bill, unless there is a specified number--I think we need to discuss it.

I will bring up the State Criminal Alien Program for reauthorization. This is paying back the States for their costs of confinement of illegals who commit felonies and misdemeanors and go to county jails and State prisons. So it will open a long and complicated debate on the floor of the Senate. We should not do that. Please. I have sat as a member of the Immigration Subcommittee now for 12 years. I come from a big immigration State, the largest, no doubt about that, in America, a State with very deep concerns.

I understand the agricultural labor needs of the States as well as anyone. And not to be able to have a markup, not to be able to make amendments in a committee and present a bill that has been scrubbed, amended, and is ready for prime time, I believe, is a huge mistake.

So I am very pleased to support the Senator's amendment. I will have another amendment in due course in this area as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to make a brief response, both to the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Idaho. One of the reasons why I think it is so difficult to look at a broken immigration system is because our immigration system is so big. America takes more immigrants in its regular immigration quota a year than other industrialized countries put together.

If you take that and you take all of the other programs, H-1B, H-2B, the L visas, and all these other visas, it adds up to about 5.5 million people a year who come into our country under one visa or another. It is an enormous job to look over this whole breadth and scope of immigration programs and make the necessary changes.

I think one logical change is if a quota of people coming from Mexico is perhaps too small, people have to wait too long; therefore, there is a huge illegal immigration problem. Nonetheless, we are a nation of laws. If we have the law, we should follow the law. So I am one who believes reform should be done, but in the name of reform I don't believe we should pass a bill quickly on an appropriation bill without going through the necessary steps to adjust it and amend it in the committee.

Let me make a point in response to the Senator from Idaho, and I am pleased that he is a great expert on California agriculture. Since he is, he will know that the great bulk of the workforce is illegal. That workforce has been there for a very long time. I would accept a bill that provided for some adjustment of a workforce that had worked in agricultural labor for 3 years, that had been in California doing it, could show prior work documentation and be vouched for by employers.

According to this bill that we are going to have on the floor--and I assume people feel it is going to sweep through--you only have to work for a hundred days--that is, 575 hours--in 12 months and you are eligible for your family coming, for a temporary green card; and then if you work another time, you get a permanent green card.

Well, this is going--mark my words--to be a huge magnet. When I discuss this with people, they say: There is an eligible date. Look at it here. Do you think people across the border know the eligible date? All they know is they have to be here and work for a hundred days, so come on over. They come over and you cannot find them and they don't go home. What happens is the numbers build up, the people in southern California find people camping in their backyards, in their gullies, and in the parks; there is no housing, the schools are overcrowded, and then people go to the ballot with an initiative. That is what happened in 1994 when proposition 187, unconstitutional as it was, passed. Polls show that if put on the ballot today, it would most likely pass again.

So I have tried to be constructive. I have proposed amendments that have been rejected by the authors in the House and the Senate. I am on the Immigration Subcommittee. Why do any of us serve on a subcommittee, then, if a bill of such enormous dimension--this could be the largest immigration program in history. It could bring millions of people into this country. The workers, their spouses, their minor children are all permitted.

We should know what we do. Now, a hundred days of work, 575 hours of work--if I were on the other side, I would say I can sneak across and get a hundred hours of work, then I can bring in my family and I will have a green card. It is nirvana.

For my State, it is perhaps different--Texas might be the next State, and then Arizona--in terms of sheer numbers and problems. When the President proposed his plan, let me tell you that apprehensions at the border in February went up 14.2 percent; the next month, March, 57.8 percent; April, 79.6 percent. So the call was out there, and people thought, aha, and they tried to come across the border to get into the country. The same thing will happen.

That is why it is important that we figure a way to prevent that from happening. I will provide for an adjustment of status for people who have worked in agricultural labor for a long time, for a substantial period of time.

For a nice question or a mean one?

Mr. President, I think I have the floor. I was waiting for the question.

I thank the Senator.

Yes.

If I may conclude my discussion, and then I will yield the floor to Senator Craig. He mentioned raisins. The last time I looked, it took 40,000 workers in California to harvest the raisin crop in 4 different counties. Most of these are illegals. Most of these have done it year after year. They also go from crop to crop to crop, as we know.

The key is to take care of, in my view, the people who are already here and working and are a part of this. The demand for the agricultural jobs comes every time the employer sanctions are carried out. Then suddenly the agricultural industry says we are for bringing more people in from other countries. I think we have to find a way to have a workforce that is known, identifiable, reasonably and well paid, that can get housing, can send their children to school, that work in this industry. Probably one-half of the agricultural workforce--I would say 600,000 workers--is illegal. These are the 600,000 who I believe we should be concerned with--not opening the border to bring in more but to find a way that they then can become a responsible part of the workforce. That is where I am, because I admit that is a need.

This bill does not do that. This bill sets up a different program and does not relate to people who have been here for years working in agriculture. They may be very good citizens. They probably are. Some of them own their homes, they have children, they are responsible. They have a tough life, true. I think this can be handled. But what has happened is there is a set mentality that the bill has to be this way because we have 60 votes, and we are going to keep it this way. That is a problem and, therefore, that mentality does not let it go through Immigration, does not let amendments have exposure in committee.

Virtually everybody here who is arguing is a member of the Judiciary Committee. That is where we ought to be debating it instead of on the floor passing a piece of legislation of which no one--no one--knows the absolute effect.

I yield the floor.

That is correct.

Mr. President, can the Senator give me a page?

Absolutely. Additionally, this bill gives this special temporary green card to people with two misdemeanors on their record. I have discussed this with the authors in the House, and they do not want to amend it. My own view is there should be no misdemeanors. Why should somebody who broke a law coming here be able to break two more laws and get special consideration? We all know misdemeanor laws vary. We know there are misdemeanor drug laws, there are misdemeanor battery laws, misdemeanor theft laws, misdemeanor driving under the influence--there are all kinds of criminal misdemeanors. To say someone who broke the law who came here illegally, who was illegally employed, can have two misdemeanors on their record and have a special status is something I do not understand. Yet I have implored them for a substantial period of time, and they do not want to change.

If we had a chance to discuss this in the Judiciary Committee in a markup, this would be brought out, and we could debate it back and forth. People could say why they want it, we could say why we do not think it should be included, and there would be a vote. At least a bill would have been vetted by a committee process.

I will be happy to yield.

This has been and is today a huge problem. Additionally, there is another problem on our southern border, if the Senator would give me a minute, and that is, other than Mexicans crossing the border being picked up illegally. I think it was up to 88,000 last year. So it is shooting up. And when you ask the Border Patrol about it, they say this is very difficult for them to sort it all out because there is such pressure on the border. The Senator, certainly, in Arizona knows that pressure on the border.

The fraud of documents is well known. One can buy a driver's license, a Social Security card fraudulently in places that I know of and have seen it happening in southern California for $15 or $20. So that is not a big problem.

I thank the Senator very much.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Yes. If I may, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I ask unanimous consent--

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized following the Senator from Maryland for the purpose of offering an amendment.

If I might, how long will this be?

I would object since I have been waiting.

Two minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

What I would like to do is put forward an amendment. I gather there will be no more votes tonight.

Yes, that is fine. I will not take long. I will just put the amendment in. I will not ask for a vote tonight.

I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, I want the Senator to know it is my intention to vote for her amendment. I obviously did not want it on this bill, but since it is, it is my intention to vote for it.

Amendment No. 395

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that text of the REAL ID

Act of 2005 should not be included in the conference report)

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that the amendment be read.

I thank the clerk. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Alexander, Leahy, Clinton, and Boxer.

As the clerk has read, it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It relates directly to the REAL ID Act. It is the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that attempts to bind the Senate conferees to oppose the REAL ID Act in the conference on this bill. I would like to take a minute to explain why.

First of all, this was presented to the Senate in February. It has not yet been heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, once again, a very controversial bill will be considered in conference on this bill. It was put in the House bill in a preemptive way. It is there, and we have to deal with it.

I want everyone to know this bill is major in scope in what it does to change immigration hearings and much to do with immigration. It very much tightens the standards for asylum and withholding of removal. It would give judges broad discretion to deny asylum claims based on the credibility of the applicant. And possibly one reason alone could mean a negative credibility finding.

It changes the statutory requirement that an applicant must demonstrate to be granted asylum, making it much more difficult, and it eliminates judicial review by barring a court from reversing the decision of the judge or other adjudicator about the availability of corroborating evidence.

It would give the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the ability to unilaterally waive all laws to construct the border fence, including possibly wage and hour laws, criminal laws, labor laws, civil rights, and so on.

Now, the problem with this section--I happen to be for finishing this 3-mile stretch of California border with a border fence--is the wording in this is so broad that it appears to provide waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads not just to finish the fence in Southern California but anywhere in the United States. And it would allow for no review or appeal of the decisions of the Secretary of Homeland Security relating to this.

In terms of judicial review of orders of removal, it would limit, if not eliminate, stays of removal while cases are pending. Most importantly, it would eliminate, for the first time in our Nation's history, any habeas corpus review of removal orders for both criminal and noncriminal immigrants. This is a major change. It would limit the ability of the courts of appeal to review mixed questions of law, even in cases of longtime, lawful permanent residents, if virtually any crime led to the deportation.

Further, the restrictions on reviewing mixed questions of law would apply to asylum and claims under the Convention Against Torture. Now, here is a section that causes great concern. I believe it does to Republicans as well as Democrats.

The REAL ID Act appears to essentially create bounty hunters. Let me tell you how it does that. It increases the authority of bail bondsmen to arrest and detain anyone they believe is illegal, including a financial incentive by leaving it up to a bondsman's opinion that an alien poses a flight risk which necessitates them being turned over to the Department of Homeland Security. If that is the case, the alien

forfeits his or her bond premium under very broad circumstances. Illegal aliens turned over to the Department of Homeland Security must be detained.

Now, this is at a time when immigration officials have not proven they can detain all of the aliens they apprehend today.

What this does is, it says to the bail bondsman, if you think someone is illegal, you can go after them. You can maintain custody over them and you turn them in, and they have to be detained. This is on a bail bondsman's opinion of illegality. It also would provide bail bondsmen with unfettered access to information on illegal aliens and to influence Government processes with noncitizens subject to bonding. I don't know that we should be giving bail bondsmen this authority without any hearing in the Senate or any consequential discussion in the House on this point.

It sets minimum bonds for aliens in removal proceedings at $10,000, and it prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from releasing anyone on their own recognizance who is in removal proceedings. We don't even know if we can hold everybody. This particular section, actually more than any other, causes me enormous concern, and obviously the cosponsors of this sense of the Senate.

It does a number of other things. It holds spouses and children of an alien accountable for an alien's involvement in a terrorist organization or activity, even if they didn't know about it. I don't know that we should do that without understanding what we are doing.

With respect to driver's licenses, it creates a large unfunded mandate on the States. The CBO did a cost estimate of the costs associated with implementing the driver's license provisions and estimated that DHS would spend $20 million over the 5-year period to reimburse States for the cost of complying with the legislation. But in addition, it would require States that participate in the driver's license agreement, which is an interstate database, to share driver information at a cost of $80 million over 3 years, to reimburse States for the cost to establish and maintain the database. The grand total is $100 million over 3 to 5 years.

The just-passed intelligence reform law sets up a process whereby States, the Federal Government, and interested parties will make recommendations for establishing minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The REAL ID Act essentially countermands the rights of States in this process. Both the current law, pursuant to the intelligence reform bill, and the REAL ID Act require that States set certain minimum document requirements as well as minimum issuance standards. The difference is that the REAL ID Act eliminates the stakeholder process and proscribes a very complicated and burdensome set of requirements on States.

It also has differences between the intelligence reform bill and the REAL ID Act on the issue of driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The intelligence bill gives States 2 years to comply with minimum standards. The REAL ID Act gives States 3 years in order for these documents to be accepted by a Federal agency for official purposes.

Secondly, the intelligence reform bill requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation work together to establish minimum standards for driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The REAL ID Act imposes on States what must be done.

I don't think we should do this. We passed an intelligence reform bill. We dealt with some standards in that bill. Here, without a hearing, without any committee consideration, this bill is put, by the House of Representatives, on to this supplemental and is in conference.

I don't think we should do this. The sponsors agree with me. So we have proposed a sense of the Senate that would seek to bind conferees to eliminate the REAL ID Act from this bill. That doesn't mean it is eliminated for all time. I also believe the Judiciary Committee should promptly hear the bill. We should consider amendments. We should be able to compare it in this house with the intelligence reform bill just passed and, therefore, make a decision. This is what the Senate is set up for. We are meant to be a deliberative body. We are meant to consider major and controversial pieces of legislation and, if necessary, slow them down. This is added unilaterally on this supplemental bill with no consideration by this house whatsoever. It is going to resolve itself with a very few Members of this body dealing with an enormously complicated, controversial bill that conflicts with other legislation passed by this body. We don't do our work if we let this happen.

We have proposed this sense of the Senate, and I am hopeful there will be enough votes in this body so that the conferees on the Senate side will simply not accept business being done this way. Who would have thought a major piece of immigration legislation would be placed, without hearing, on this emergency supplemental which deals with the war in Iraq and critical emergency matters? It is a big mistake.

I ask for the yeas and nays, and I understand the vote will not be tonight, but this will be put in the order.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Amendment No. 387

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling initiative to be part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. These water recycling projects will produce approximately 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States.

The legislation would authorize two project components: the first of which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, IEUA and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District CVWD, will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually. Combined, approximately 100,000 acre feet of new water would be produced locally by 2010, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project.

Significantly, the Federal cost share is only 10 percent of the upfront capital costs.

We must continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the Western United States. The Inland Empire region is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. This legislation means that the Inland Empire will use less water from the Colorado River and northern California, and the bill will have other benefits like improved water quality, energy savings, and job creation.

The development of recycled water has enormous capacity to produce significant amounts of water, and have it ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years.

Today's Commissioner of Reclamation said it best when, in a speech to the WateReuse Association he declared that recycled water is ``the last river to tap.''

IEUA produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported water.

As we look into the future, it is appropriate that we are guided by lessons from the recent past. In the late 1980's, California confronted a sustained, multi-year drought. It was so serious that some observed that our State had 6-year-old first graders who had never seen ``green grass.'' California faced a crisis and water agencies and water districts, particularly in Southern California found a solution-- recycled water.

In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California was receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation. The Interior Secretary looked into the future and saw a day when California would get its allocation--4.4. million acre-feet, but no longer would it get up to 800,000 acre-feet of ``surplus flows.'' As is well known, that day has arrived.

For any political leader, it's always a tremendous challenge to look into the future and design programs and solutions to a crisis. Secretary Lujan did exactly that. In August 1991, he launched the Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado River water supply reductions. In this endeavor, Secretary Lujan was assisted by then Commissioner of Reclamation Dennis Underwood. Last week, Mr. Underwood was selected by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD, board of directors as their new general manager and CEO.

Congress saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Congress, in 1992, was completing work on major water legislation. The Lujan initiative, a year after it was first announced, became Title XVI, the Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland and other western metropolitan areas.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, through the Fontana Water Company, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga through the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Monte Vista Water District.

This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD's Integrated Resource Plan, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, SAWPA's Integrated Watershed Plan, and the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Plan, Inland Empire Utility Agency's Feasibility Study, Cucamonga Valley Water District's ``Every Drop Counts'' Urban Water Reuse Management Strategy, the Bureau of Reclamation's Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study, the State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, the WateReuse Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, ACWA and the U.S. Department of the Interior's Water 2025 Initiative.

Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support recycling projects. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these water recycling projects.

These projects were authorized for feasibility study in Public Law 102-575, Title XVI, Section 1606, the Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study in 1992. The State of California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, SAWPA and others provided $3 million of the $6 million required for the regional feasibility study of which these projects were one part.

Detailed Feasibility Studies and environmentally reports have been prepared and approved by both agencies and certified by the State of California.

Congressman David Dreier introduced identical legislation in the House in the 108th Congress. The House Resources Committee and then the House of Representatives both passed the bill unanimously.

His bill is cosponsored by Representatives Gary Miller, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert and Joe Baca.

And these valuable recycling projects would never have progressed at all without the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, general manager of the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater, CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the

text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling initiative to be part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. These water recycling projects will produce approximately 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States.

The legislation would authorize two project components: the first of which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, IEUA and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District CVWD, will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually. Combined, approximately 100,000 acre feet of new water would be produced locally by 2010, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project.

Significantly, the Federal cost share is only 10 percent of the upfront capital costs.

We must continue to approve measures preventing water supply shortages in the Western United States. The Inland Empire region is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. This legislation means that the Inland Empire will use less water from the Colorado River and northern California, and the bill will have other benefits like improved water quality, energy savings, and job creation.

The development of recycled water has enormous capacity to produce significant amounts of water, and have it ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years.

Today's Commissioner of Reclamation said it best when, in a speech to the WateReuse Association he declared that recycled water is ``the last river to tap.''

IEUA produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported water.

As we look into the future, it is appropriate that we are guided by lessons from the recent past. In the late 1980's, California confronted a sustained, multi-year drought. It was so serious that some observed that our State had 6-year-old first graders who had never seen ``green grass.'' California faced a crisis and water agencies and water districts, particularly in Southern California found a solution-- recycled water.

In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California was receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation. The Interior Secretary looked into the future and saw a day when California would get its allocation--4.4. million acre-feet, but no longer would it get up to 800,000 acre-feet of ``surplus flows.'' As is well known, that day has arrived.

For any political leader, it's always a tremendous challenge to look into the future and design programs and solutions to a crisis. Secretary Lujan did exactly that. In August 1991, he launched the Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado River water supply reductions. In this endeavor, Secretary Lujan was assisted by then Commissioner of Reclamation Dennis Underwood. Last week, Mr. Underwood was selected by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD, board of directors as their new general manager and CEO.

Congress saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Congress, in 1992, was completing work on major water legislation. The Lujan initiative, a year after it was first announced, became Title XVI, the Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland and other western metropolitan areas.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, through the Fontana Water Company, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga through the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Monte Vista Water District.

This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD's Integrated Resource Plan, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, SAWPA's Integrated Watershed Plan, and the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Plan, Inland Empire Utility Agency's Feasibility Study, Cucamonga Valley Water District's ``Every Drop Counts'' Urban Water Reuse Management Strategy, the Bureau of Reclamation's Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study, the State of California's Water Recycling Task Force, the WateReuse Association, the Association of California Water Agencies, ACWA and the U.S. Department of the Interior's Water 2025 Initiative.

Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support recycling projects. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these water recycling projects.

These projects were authorized for feasibility study in Public Law 102-575, Title XVI, Section 1606, the Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study in 1992. The State of California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, SAWPA and others provided $3 million of the $6 million required for the regional feasibility study of which these projects were one part.

Detailed Feasibility Studies and environmentally reports have been prepared and approved by both agencies and certified by the State of California.

Congressman David Dreier introduced identical legislation in the House in the 108th Congress. The House Resources Committee and then the House of Representatives both passed the bill unanimously.

His bill is cosponsored by Representatives Gary Miller, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert and Joe Baca.

And these valuable recycling projects would never have progressed at all without the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, general manager of the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater, CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the

text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on Saturday evening the world lost a voice for peace, justice, and human dignity.

Born in Poland in 1920, Pope John Paul II grew up in the aftermath of World War I. As a young man, he witnessed the injustice of the Nazi occupation of his country, lived amid the horrendous crimes of the Holocaust, and survived decades of repression behind the Iron Curtain.

Out of those experiences, he developed a hopeful view of the world that defined his 26 years as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and he shared that vision with Catholics and non-Catholics worldwide.

As the first non-Italian Pope since 1523, Pope John Paul II was a truly groundbreaking figure. He redefined the papacy, coming out from behind the walls of the Vatican to travel to 129 countries and literally reach out to people wherever he went.

Through his travel--more than any other Pope--he helped rejuvenate and expand Catholicism to areas far beyond its roots.

During his 26 years as Pope, the Catholic Church grew from 750 million people to over 1 billion, with most of that growth coming from the third world.

For those in developing countries who struggled merely to survive, the Pope was a strong advocate for economic justice. And for those who lived under repression, he was a powerful voice for freedom.

His 1979 visit to his native Poland is viewed as the spark that ignited the labor movement which toppled communism in Poland and led to its demise throughout Eastern Europe a decade later.

It was his powerful yet simple belief in the value of human life that brought him to challenge violence wherever he saw it.

He chastised the brutal Communist governments of Eastern Europe. He criticized the military junta that governed Brazil in the early 1980s. He condemned nuclear war while meeting with survivors of the Hiroshima bombing. He called for an end to the violence in Northern Ireland. And he appealed for human rights in Cuba.

The Pope consistently urged leaders and citizens alike to seek peace and respect human life.

The Pope also sought to heal wounds. He apologized for the errors of Catholics over the last 2,000 years and for injustices against Jews, women, indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the poor. He acknowledged the failure of many Catholics to help Jews during the Holocaust. And more recently, he condemned the sexual abuse of children by priests in the United States.

The Pope reached out to members of other faiths at a time of growing sectarian violence and religious strife.

He was the first Pope to pray in a synagogue, the first to visit Auschwitz, and the first to make an official papal visit to the Holy Land--John Paul II made great strides in improving relations between Catholics and Jews.

And just as he acknowledged the mistakes made by his Church and its members, he also demonstrated a willingness to forgive those who had done harm to him.

In December 1983, he met with the man who had attempted to assassinate him 2\1/2\ half years earlier. During that meeting, the Pope forgave the man who had shot him three times.

The Pope regularly visited the United States and met with five Presidents. He believed that the U.S. had a

special responsibility to the world calling on our Nation to be ``for the world, an example of a genuinely free, democratic, just and humane society.''

In recent years, even as his health deteriorated, he refused to give up. And in this, he served as a model to millions of people throughout the world about how faith and willpower can overcome adversity.

Indeed, I cannot remember a Pope who has been more warmly received and loved. I had the great honor to meet him at the Vatican in 1982 where I presented him with a cross sculpted from handguns melted down after being turned into police when they were banned in San Francisco. He received my gift warmly, giving me a rosary in return.

The world has lost a strong voice for peace, justice, and human dignity. Pope John Paul II will be dearly missed.