Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength, JOBS, Act.

I supported this bill when first passed out of the Senate on May 11 of this year and I will support it again today. In fact, the DeWine- Kennedy amendment on FDA oversight of tobacco improved the bill.

Without this legislation, U.S. companies will face increasing tariffs as a result of a World Trade Organization ruling that determined that significant portions of our Federal Tax Code ran counter to international trade laws.

The DeWine-Kennedy amendment that we adopted will strengthen the bill by restricting advertising and promotions that appeal to children; stopping illegal sales of tobacco products to children; requiring changes in tobacco products, such as the reduction or elimination of harmful chemicals, to make them less harmful or less addictive; prohibiting unsubstantiated health claims about so-called ``reduced risk'' tobacco products that would have the effect of discouraging current tobacco users from quitting or encouraging new users to start; and requiring the disclosure of the contents of tobacco products and tobacco industry research about the health effects of their products.

This amendment is absolutely essential to me should a tobacco buyout be included in the conference report.

But this legislation is still far from perfect and I have growing concerns about what we may see when this bill returns to the Senate following conference. This concern has been heightened by what I see contained in the House bill.

First, the House bill contains the $9.6 billion tobacco buyout proposal that contains no provision for FDA oversight of tobacco products.

Second, the House bill is not offset by revenue raisers and would cost $35 billion through 2014, according to the official Joint Committee on Taxation estimate. Alarmingly, this cost estimate does not provide a true sense of the bill's fiscal impact because the bill employs two budget gimmicks.

The first gimmick involves phasing in tax cuts slowly over the 10- year period covered by the legislation. This ``backloading'' of tax cuts shaves tens of billions of dollars off the 10-year cost of the House package.

The second gimmick involves having tax cuts expire before the end of the 10-year period, even though the intention is, in many cases, for the tax cuts to be extended and to remain in effect on an ongoing basis.

The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that making permanent most of the temporary tax cuts in the House bill would add $190 billion to the cost of the bill through 2014.

In contrast, the Senate bill is fully offset and will effectively provide a 3-percent tax cut for manufacturers; give manufacturers a 50- percent tax credit for the cost of adding jobs; extend the research tax credit through 2005; protect hundreds of thousands of workers from cuts in Federal overtime protections; prevent the Federal Government from spending taxpayer dollars on contracts with companies that use foreign labor when there are domestic alternatives; provide a tax credit for companies which produce energy by using underbrush and other potentially hazardous fuels found in our forests; provide a tax credit for consumers who buy hybrid vehicles; protect the California film industry and the jobs it creates; and provide for FDA oversight of tobacco products.

I will be looking for very specific items to be included in the conference report. The final bill should be fully offset and not increase the deficit; contain strong and effective FDA oversight of tobacco products if the bill contains a tobacco buyout provision; and require that any tobacco buyout provision be funded by tobacco manufacturers, not taxpayers; contain a tax credit for the open-loop biomass industry that works to reduce fire hazards in California; and protect companies, such as the film industry, that did nothing wrong under the old law and yet face the possibility of having their tax benefits cut.

And, to the conferees, I want to stress the importance of these provisions to me. These are not ordinary times and we must protect the integrity of our tax system from those who would twist it at the cost of fiscal responsibility.

The long-term budget outlook remains grim. Although the deficit may recede somewhat over the next few years from its current historically high level, it will swell as the baby boomers retire in large numbers in the coming years and eventually reach unsustainable levels. One of the most prudent steps that we as policymakers can take in preparation for this impending challenge is to reduce the deficit today.

Moreover, corporate tax revenues are at all time low levels as a share of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projected in March that corporate tax revenues will equal 1.4 percent of GDP in 2004--lower than the average levels seen in each decade since the 1940s.

Furthermore, CBO projects that corporate tax receipts will remain at about 1.8 percent of GDP through the end of the decade. This is lower than the average level of corporate tax receipts in each of these decades except for the 1980s, when corporate receipts plummeted from the effects of tax cuts and economic conditions.

Given the historically low corporate revenues, it does not represent sound policy to use the revenues gained from closing corporate loopholes to fund new targeted corporate tax breaks. The goal should be to restore the corporate revenue base, at least in part, in order to help reduce the deficit, not to diminish the corporate revenue base further.

So while I support the Senate version of the JOBS bill because on balance it provides important protections for California workers and businesses, I do so warily and will reserve final judgment until I see the conference report.

Mr. President, I rise today to set the record straight regarding the Western energy crisis. Ken Lay, the former CEO of Enron, appeared on CNN's Larry King Live on Monday, July 12. Larry King asked him:

Did Enron's problems or fortunes or misfortunes have

anything to do with hurting California and its energy

problem? Because a lot of politicians in California blamed

Enron.

Lay responded:

Well, they do, and I still think to this day falsely,

Larry. I mean, California, for the most part--I mean,

California, California regulators, politicians, et cetera,

caused the problem in California.

Let me set the record straight. During consideration of California's legislation that deregulated the energy

market, Enron was at the center of the lobbying effort that crafted the bill.

Once the legislation was passed, Enron took full advantage of the loopholes it helped to create to manipulate and game the Western energy market. I would not argue that the system was perfect, but I would assert that Enron had a huge hand in creating such a flawed system, which it used to its benefit.

Enron, and other energy companies, created a business environment in which the bottom line mattered more than the public good.

As I have stated on this floor before, energy traders were completely unconcerned with customers having electricity as long as it meant that they got an extra bonus that day.

And the fault does not lie solely with Enron. Other companies were also involved with gaming the Western energy markets, including, but not limited to: Dynegy, Reliant, Williams, El Paso, Duke, BP Energy, Portland General, AES, Mirant, CMS Energy, American Electric Power Company, and Sempra Energy Trading.

The recently-released Enron tapes demonstrate the callousness of these companies:

One trader complained: ``They're [expletive] taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?''

A second responded: ``Yeah, grandma Millie, man.''

The first responded: ``Yeah, now she wants her [expletive] money back for all the power you've charged right up, [expletive phrase], for [expletive] $250 a megawatt hour.''

The good news is that the figures responsible for running Enron are beginning to be brought to justice. For instance, Ken Lay, along with former Enron CEO Jeffrey K. Skilling and former Enron Chief Accounting Officer Richard Causey, were indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on charges of conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and making false statements.

The indictment alleges that at various times between at least 1999 and 2001, Lay, Skilling, Causey and other Enron executives engaged in a wide-ranging scheme to deceive the investing public, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and others about the true performance of Enron's businesses.

The alleged scheme was designed to make it appear that: Enron was growing at a healthy and predictable rate, consistent with analysts' published expectations; Enron did not have significant write-offs or debt and was worthy of investment-grade credit rating; and, Enron was comprised of a number of successful business units, and that the company had an appropriate cash flow.

These actions had the effect of inflating artificially Enron's stock price, which increased from approximately $30 per share in early 1998 to over $80 per share in January 2001, and artificially stemming the decline of the stock during the first three quarters of 2001.

The indictment also alleges that Lay had a significant profit motive for participating in the scheme.

As stated in the indictment, Lay received approximately $300 million from the sale of Enron stock options and restricted stock between 1998 and 2001, netting over $217 million in profit, and was paid more than $19 million in salary and bonuses.

Lay received a salary of over $1 million, a bonus of $7 million and $3.6 million in long term incentive payments during 2001 alone.

Additionally, Lay sold 918,104 shares of Enron stock during the period of August 21 through Oct. 26, 2001, to repay advances totaling $26,025,000 he had received from a line of credit extended to Lay by Enron.

At that same time, California was overcharged by at least $9 billion. Now we at least know where some of that money went.

Yet even if Enron is forced to pay back the almost $2 billion it overcharged California, bankruptcy will protect the company from paying back much more than 20 cents on the dollar.

It is my hope that as the evidence mounts against Ken Lay that the truth about his, and Enron's, role in the Western energy crisis will leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the crisis was manufactured by unethical, greedy corporations.

California has suffered enough as a result of the crisis--it does not need to suffer further from Ken Lay's mistruths.

Mr. President, thank you for letting me set the record straight.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Biden, Specter, Kyl, Hollings and Allen, to introduce the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2004--legislation designed to deter, prevent and punish a terrorist attack at or through one of our Nation's seaports.

I would like to thank Senator Kyl for joining me in sponsoring this bill, as well as Senators Biden, Specter, Hollings and Allen for their leadership and hard work on this critical matter.

Last year, Senator Kyl and I introduced the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003. That bill contained a set of comprehensive measures to enhance the security of our ports. At the same time, Senators Biden and Specter were working on legislation largely focused on the criminal law aspect of Port Security.

Since that time we have joined together to craft the bill now before us. The legislation is narrow in focus, limited primarily to criminal law provisions. It is my hope that it will enjoy strong bipartisan support.

I also hope we can continue to work towards a more comprehensive approach to seaport security in the coming months.

Our nation's seaports represent the soft underbelly of our Nation's homeland security. Our adversaries, including al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, have the plans and capabilities to launch a maritime attack. In fact, just last week six al-Qaida associates were charged with planning the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. in Yemen that left 19 American sailors dead.

Millions of shipping containers pass through our ports each month. A single container has room for as much as 60,000 pounds of explosives-- 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. When you consider that a single ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time, the vulnerability of our seaports is alarming.

Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' could also be placed in a container and shipped into the country. With the current monitoring system, the odds are that the container would never be inspected. And, even if the container was inspected, it would be too late.

In addition to the danger such attacks present to human lives, an attack on or through a seaport could have devastating economic consequences. Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of goods imported and exported from the U.S. That means 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion. A terrorist attack would bring our port operations

to a complete standstill. To give you even a small glimpse of what such a disruption could mean, last year's West Coast labor dispute cost the U.S. economy somewhere between $1 and $2 billion per day--a total of $10 to $20 billion.

In its December 2002 report, the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force described what a terrorist attack at or through one of our ports might mean in economic terms: ``If an explosive device were loaded in a container and set off in a port, it would almost automatically raise concern about the integrity of the 21,000 containers that arrive in U.S. ports each day and the many thousands more that arrive by truck and rail across U.S. land borders. A three-to-four-week closure of U.S. ports would bring the global container industry to its knees. Megaports such as Rotterdam and Singapore would have to close their gates to prevent boxes from piling up on their limited pier space. Trucks, trains, and barges would be stranded outside the terminals with no way to unload their boxes. Boxes bound for the United States would have to be unloaded from their outbound ships. Service contracts would need to be renegotiated. As the system became gridlocked, so would much of global commerce.''

This is a national issue, but one of particular concern to my home state because more than half of all goods imported into the U.S. pass through my home State of California.

Last year, 6.5 million imported containers--52 percent of the containers entering the United States--traveled through California. Six million of these came through two ports alone: the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach.

That means that, if terrorists succeeded in putting a weapon of mass destruction into a container undetected, there is a one in two chance that this weapon would arrive and/or be detonated in Southern California.

And the problem is not just with containers. Nearly one-quarter of California's imported crude oil is offloaded in one area. A suicide attack on a tanker at an offloading facility could leave Southern California without refined fuels within a few days.

Since September 11, we have made significant steps in enhancing port security, but clearly, there is more to be done. This bill addresses some of those needed enhancements, particularly in the area of criminal law.

The Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2004 does the following: Clarifies existing law to make clear that those who would try to access our ports under false pretenses are committing a crime; makes it a crime to refuse to stop when the Coast Guard orders a ship to standby for inspection; sets clear criminal penalties for the use of a dangerous weapon or explosive on a passenger vessel such as a cruise ship; imposes criminal penalties for those who tamper with navigational aids, such as buoys and transponders, intentionally place destructive devices in navigable waters, or intentionally dump hazardous materials in waterways; establishes a specific crime for knowingly and willfully transporting aboard any vessel an explosive, biological agent, chemical weapon, or radioactive or nuclear materials intended to be used to commit a terrorist act; the bill also makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully transport a person aboard any vessel who intends to commit, or has committed, a terrorist act; makes it a crime to damage or destroy a vessel or a maritime facility, to commit an act of violence against any individual on a vessel or near a port facility, or to knowingly communicate false information that endangers the safety of a vessel; provides sanctions to deter criminal or civil violations related to a range of offenses, including theft of interstate or foreign shipments; amends existing law to increase penalties for noncompliance with certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for incoming ships, including information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country from which the shipments originated; and finally, the bill toughens anti-stowaway laws and laws governing bribery of port security officials.

Strengthening criminal penalties is one way we can make our Nation's ports less vulnerable. The Coast Guard, the FBI, Customs and Immigration authorities--all need the appropriate crime-fighting tools to prevent a terrorist attack. Today, we are introducing legislation to provide the crime-fighting tools that will do just that.

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

Mr. President, I believe Senator Schumer and I have 15 minutes between us by unanimous consent agreement, and I ask that I be alerted when 8 minutes has passed.

Expiration of Assault Weapons Ban

Ten years ago, I introduced an amendment to the crime bill which banned the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic military-style assault weapons. Senator Schumer, then a Member of the House, a member of the Judiciary Committee, introduced the same amendment in the Judiciary Committee. We were both successful. It passed the Senate, passed the House, was signed into law by President Clinton.

Over the past 10 years, gun traces to semiautomatic military-style assault weapons have decreased by two-thirds. The ban has worked. But 2 months from today, the Federal ban will expire.

Once again, new guns such as the Tec-DC9 will flood our streets. If you don't know what a Tec-DC9 is, I am going to show you. This is Gian Luigi Ferri, who walked into 101 California Street and killed six people, wounding eight. And this is the Tec-DC-9 he was carrying with a 30-round clip. He had 250 rounds in additional clips with him. He is dead here, shot on the floor, but not until after he had either killed or wounded 14 people. The ban will expire despite overwhelming public support to renew it.

Seventy-one percent of all Americans support renewing the ban. So do 64 percent of people in homes with a gun. The ban is going to expire despite overwhelming support from law enforcement and civic organizations. As you can see, nearly every major law enforcement and civic organization in our country supports renewal: the Fraternal Order of Police, the Chiefs of Police, the United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and on and on.

The ban will expire despite the stated public support of President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft. As you can see from this letter, the administration has reiterated its official support for renewing the ban time and time again. From the Department of Justice:

As the President has stated on several occasions, he

supports the reauthorization of the current ban . . .

And the ban will expire despite the support of a majority of Senators, 52. Despite all of this, it looks more and more likely that the National Rifle Association will win. The ban will expire, and the American people will once again be made less safe.

Although President Bush has said he supports the ban, the White House has refused to lift a finger to help us pass the renewal. They are instead playing political hot potato with the Republican leaders in Congress.

The Hill newspaper, on May 12, said that ``an aide to [the Speaker] has said privately that if the President pushes for it, the ban will probably be reauthorized. But if he doesn't, the chances . . . are remote.''

The Boston Globe reports that a White House spokesman said ``Bush still supports the ban but is waiting for the House to act.''

So the House will act only if the President asks them, and the President will act only if the House passes it. It is a classic catch- 22.

One month ago, June 14, three former Presidents wrote to President Bush. Presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton took the extraordinary step of writing a joint letter to President Bush asking him to work to renew the ban and offering their assistance to do so. Let me read just part of it:

We are pleased that you support reauthorization of the . .

. Assault Weapons Act, which is scheduled to expire in

September. Each of us, along with President Reagan, worked

hard in support of this vital law, and it would be a grave

mistake if it were allowed to sunset.

It goes on and expresses what this law means. I could not agree more. We cannot go back to those days. We know these guns are used by gangs, by criminals, by grievance killers, by troubled children to kill their schoolmates. We also know from al-Qaida training manuals that al-Qaida has recommended that its members travel to the United States to buy assault weapons at gun shows. Why? Because it is so easy to do so.

As the threat of terrorism around the world increases, how can we let the ban expire and make it that much easier for terrorists to arm themselves with military-style weaponry? And make no mistake, gun manufacturers and sellers are keeping a close watch.

In mid-April, Italian customs seized more than 8,000 AK-47 assault rifles on their way from the Romanian Port of Constanta to New York and then to Georgia. These guns had a value of more than $7 million.

Of course, shipping assembled AK-47s would be illegal under the ban and under a 1989 Executive order of the first President Bush that banned certain guns from importation. But according to ATF, importing these guns so they can be disassembled, sold for parts, and then reassembled would not be illegal, and now purchasers will be allowed to reassemble these guns into their banned form. This shipment was not an isolated example.

Here is an advertisement from Armalite, a company that makes post-ban rifles. As we can see from this advertisement, they are offering a coupon for a free flash suppressor for anyone who buys one of these guns so that on September 14, once the ban is expired, the gun can be modified to its pre-ban configuration. What do you need a flash suppressor for? If you have a flash suppressor on a gun and a 30-round clip in it and you are shooting at night at the police or at neighbors, you can't see where the gun flashes. The flash is suppressed. So if you are a criminal, you may need one. If you are a legitimate citizen, you don't.

This is the kind of thing we can expect, just 2 months from now: Companies gearing up to once again produce the deadly assault weapons, the high-capacity clips which are now banned, clips, drums, or strips of more than 10 bullets, and dangerous accessories we worked so hard to stop 10 years ago.

I hope that, before September 13, the President and the Congress can find the courage to stand up to the NRA, to listen to law enforcement all across the Nation who know that to ban these guns makes sense and saves lives.

Listen to the studies that show that crime with assault weapons of all kinds has decreased as much as 66 percent. The bottom line is that everyone knows this ban should remain law, but time is running out. We have 14 legislative days. Will the House of Representatives step up to the plate and find an opportunity to give the House an opportunity to vote to renew the military-style assault weapons legislation?

I ask unanimous consent to print the following editorials in the Record.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to make an argument directly contrary to the arguments just presented by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I do not consider myself an expert on marriage. I have been married for a long time. I have one daughter, three stepdaughters, and five grandchildren. I celebrate marriage. I understand the difficulties in working to keep it together. But I believe this is a waste of time.

The votes are not present to submit this amendment to the States. The timing is just a few months before an election, and family law has always been relegated to the States. This essentially would be the first departure from that.

My argument today is based on my understanding of the law. My understanding of what is happening in the States indicates to me that the States are well able to handle the issue of marriage on their own. The tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are

reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Marriage is not once mentioned in the Constitution. Most authorities believe it to be a power reserved to the States.

As early as 1890, that is 114 years ago, in In Re Burrus, the United States Supreme Court, in a child custody dispute, stated:

The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and

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

and not to the laws of the United States.

Later, in a 1979 Supreme Court decision, Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, the Court stated in dicta:

Insofar as marriage is within temporal control, the States

lay on the guiding hand.

Furthermore, the courts have long held that no State can be forced to recognize a marriage that offends a deeply held public policy of that State. States, as a result, have frequently and constitutionally refused to recognize marriages from other States that differ from their public policy. Polygamous marriages, for example, even if sanctioned by another State, have consistently been rejected. Marriages between immediate family members have also been rejected by States, even if those marriages are accepted in other parts of the country. In no case that I know of has the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution been used to require a State to recognize a type of marriage that would violate its own strong public policy. So States have been on their own with respect to family law, including marriage.

Even as we consider the Federal Marriage Amendment, we see that the States are taking their right and powers as they relate to family law and marriage very seriously. Thirty-three States have passed their own Defense of Marriage Acts, banning same-sex marriages, and five have passed ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriages.

My own State, California, passed a Defense of Marriage Act in the year 2000. Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of Californians, 61 percent. The California Family Code now states that:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or

recognized in California.

That is the law of my State. That policy statement trumps all local and other law.

Earlier this year, the mayor of my city, Gavin Newsom, of San Francisco, decided this law was unconstitutional and ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These actions did not go unnoticed, and the California State Supreme Court subsequently enjoined the county clerk from issuing any further marriage licenses, and the county complied. Oral arguments were heard on the cases on May 25, and the State Supreme Court will issue its decision within 90 days.

However, I want to make clear, crystal clear, that the Court is not deciding on the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which said that marriage shall be between a man and a woman. Rather, the Court issued orders to show cause in Lewis v. Alfaro and Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, limited to the following issue: Were the officials of the city and county of San Francisco exceeding or acting outside the scope of their authority in refusing to enforce the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a judicial determination that those statutory provisions are unconstitutional? In other words, acting in defiance of the statewide referendum?

The orders to show cause are specifically limited to this legal question, and they do not include the substantive constitutional challenge to the California marriage statutes themselves. The marriage statute, therefore, is not in jeopardy of being overturned.

When we look around, we see that California is not the only State where people are speaking out about same-sex marriage. In fact, a lively debate is taking place throughout the country.

On July 6, the Washington Times ran an article entitled, ``Marriage Gets a Boost in Michigan.'' The article notes that the supporters of traditional marriage in Michigan recently turned in approximately 475,000 signatures to put a State constitutional amendment before the voters this November. An organizer of the effort was quoted to say:

The people responded. . . . They're tired of politicians

and activist judges making changes without having a voice.

This gives them a voice.

The article goes on to say:

Michigan's achievement marks a four-for-four victory for

those who want marriage amendments on the November ballot.

Montana, Oregon and Arkansas will place similar measures on their ballots this November. Mr. President, your own State will have one on the ballot. North Dakota and Ohio are collecting signatures necessary for ballot measures.

As you can see, the States have taken up the just powers accorded to

them by the Constitution of the United States and are responding to this issue, and that is as it should be.

The Family Research Council reported in a press release on July 9:

[A]n unprecedented nine States already have State

constitutional amendments on the ballot this fall and that

number is expected to increase to at least 14 States. Thirty-

eight States have previously gone on record stating marriage

is between one man and one woman. The people are making their

voices heard in their States but unfortunately that is not

enough.

Yet in the words of the Family Research Council, these actions by States are ``unprecedented'' and show that a process is, indeed, taking place throughout the country and that the people are active participants. Through that process, the people do have a voice and they are being heard. I believe interference from Washington in this political process is premature, unnecessary, and not in the context of the Constitution of the United States.

In light of this, it appears that proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment disregard the debate occurring in the States and point only to Massachusetts and the fact that marriage licenses are being issued legally to same-sex couples there. They argue that the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, the first State to allow such marriages, are what is driving the need to enshrine in the Constitution language that marriage is between a man and a woman. I disagree.

Even in Massachusetts, the State legislature has begun work on a State constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages but allow civil unions. This amendment is certainly not guaranteed to pass, but it is clear that the people of Massachusetts are dealing themselves with the issue as was intended and, again, it would seem without the need of assistance from Washington.

Because several dozen States have already passed a prohibition on same-sex marriage, it seems clear that in those States an argument could be made that strong public policy would lead to a refusal to recognize out-of-State same-sex marriages.

So it is not a problem demanding an immediate solution. There is a process taking place in the States throughout the country as was envisioned by the Constitution. For us to act now is not only premature but it isn't going to work because the votes are not here.

So why are we doing this? Why are we doing this when we have only passed one appropriations bill? Why are we doing this when last week we just had a briefing on the impact of terrorism on this Nation and we haven't passed a Homeland Security bill? Why are we doing this when the Constitution has reserved family law to the States and when States by the dozens have already taken up the issue and passed, either by legislature or by vote of the people, marriage amendments? Why are we doing this?

The only answer I can come up with is because this is political. It is to drive a division into the voters of America, into the people of America, one more wedge issue at a very difficult time to be used politically in elections. Everybody in this body knows they are nowhere close to 67 votes. If there were a motion to proceed, there might not even be enough votes for a motion to proceed.

Why are we doing this? Why are we stirring up the Nation? I probably have 53,000 pieces of mail on this subject alone. People do not understand that the Constitution relegates family law to the States, and has relegated the issue of adoption, marriages, and everything having to do with family law to the States.

My daughter happens to be the supervising judge of the family court in San Francisco. You can talk to any judge and see just that. The States have responded. It is not as if the States have ignored those issues. More than 36 States--more than three dozen States--have passed legislation, and 8 are moving shortly.

For the life of me, I don't understand what honest motive there is in putting this in front of this body to philosophically debate marriage on a constitutional amendment that is not going to happen, and which is enormously divisive in all of our communities.

I hope my colleagues will exercise prudence and tread carefully with our Constitution. I don't think we want to put out an amendment--I don't think we can, but let us say with some change and there were 67 votes, as the Senator from Pennsylvania correctly said, it then has to go to a vote of three-quarters of the State legislatures. When three- quarters of the States have already taken action, why would they ratify this? I think it is a useless exercise.

I have been on the Judiciary Committee long enough now to be able to take an issue and see if it is properly before us. I don't believe a constitutional amendment reserving the right of marriage to a man and a woman is properly before us because I believe that is an area clearly relegated to the States, and the States are exercising that right.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I offer into the Record my statement of support of S. 2548, private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 22-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA.

I have decided to offer private relief legislation on his behalf because I believe that Shigeru Yamada represents a model American citizen for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties.

Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since the, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother.

The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Shigeru Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status here. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependents. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. Tragically, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage.

Mr. Yamada has exhausted his options under our current immigration system of the United States. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of becoming a citizen. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation.

For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be removed from the United States and sent to Japan.

First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors form Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, Mr. Yamada earned a number of awards including being named an ``Outstanding English Student'' his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John Inumerable, describes him as being ``responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable.'' His role as the vice president of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the ``Most Inspirational Player of the Year'' in junior varsity baseball and football, as well as, varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has ``seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous.''

Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, Mr. Yamada helped freshmen find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body.

Since graduating from high school, he has volunteered his time as the coach of the Eastlake High School girl's softball team. The head coach, Mr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of ``integrity'' who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a ``team player.'' His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Mr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was 2 hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Mr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his status, he can be formally hired to continue coaching the team.

Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of gaining American citizenship. His older sister has married a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt. Since all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be ``lost'' if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read Japanese.

As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an ``upstanding `All-American' young man''. Until being picked up during a routine check of his immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.

Currently, Mr. Yamada is a sophomore at Southwestern Community College, where he is working on finishing his general education so that he can go on to earn his BA in criminal justice from San Diego State University. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own individual fortitude, he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life. In the future, Mr. Yamada is interested in pursuing a career in criminal law enforcement by serving as a police officer or an FBI agent.

With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada permanent status so that he can continue towards his bright future.

I ask unanimous consent three letters of recommendation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on this bill.

I was going to speak in favor of the bill.

I appreciate that.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the bill, but I also wish to say that I very much hope some accommodation can be reached so this bill can

come to a vote. It is an important bill. It is a bill that deals with a very real problem, and I would like to challenge every Member of this august body to read this bill. I have read it twice. It is easily understood. It is in very plain English. It essentially provides a guide to consumers as to the protocols and regulations that govern what has been a murky area of class action lawsuits. It is legislation that is long overdue.

I very much appreciate the position of my leader, Senator Daschle, in wanting to protect our minority rights, in wanting to have an opportunity to have a debate on bills that Members on this side think are extraordinarily important, as do Members on the other side. In the past, a fair way has been found, so I hope that will be the case.

As I said, I believe the way class actions are conducted is, in fact, a real problem. I have spent a considerable amount of time on the issue through Judiciary hearings, many personal meetings with those on both sides of the issues, plaintiffs and defendants, and a lot of time and energy on research and analysis. I eventually came to the conclusion that the supporters of this bill have clearly identified this problem and have come up with a reasoned solution.

More than identifying the problem, the supporters of this bill-- Senator Kohl, Senator Grassley, Senator Carper, and others--have worked diligently over the course of the last few years to answer criticisms and concerns, to address real issues, and even to make significant changes in the original legislation, changes that made this bill better at every single turn. The bill before us, then, is the result of many changes and compromises, both in the Judiciary Committee and more recently changes made after further negotiations with Senator Schumer and others pending floor action. Simply put, the legislation in its current form is more moderate, more reasoned, and will be more effective than past versions of the bill.

I thank Senators Hatch, Grassley, and Kohl for so diligently working with me and others throughout this process to correct a number of potential problems or areas of confusion that were within the original bill. I know they have many forces pulling on them from all sides, and I appreciate the time they spent in addressing these concerns.

Let me talk a little bit about the legislation and what it does and how I became involved in it. I will never forget a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee 2 years ago. At that hearing, we heard from a woman by the name of Hilda Bankston. She owned a small pharmacy with her late husband, in Mississippi. Since that time, Mrs. Bankston sent a letter to us, and she summed up her testimony before the committee. I want to read it to you.

My name is Hilda Bankston and I live in Fayette,

Mississippi. I am a former small business owner who was

victimized by lawyers looking to strike it rich in Jefferson

County and I write to you today to tell you that our legal

system is broken and that the Class Action Fairness Act will

help fix it.

Over the next few days, et cetera, et cetera, we will be debating this legislation. This is the important part, this is what she said in committee, and this is the overarching need to stop forum shopping:

For thirty years, my husband, Navy Seaman Fourth Class

Mitchell Bankston, and I lived our dream, owning and

operating Bankston Drugstore in Fayette, Mississippi. We

worked hard and my husband built a solid reputation as a

caring, honest pharmacist.

But our world and our dreams were shaken to their

foundation in 1999, when Bankston Drugstore was named as a

defendant in a national class action lawsuit brought in

Jefferson County against one of the nation's largest drug

companies, the manufacturer of Fen-Phen, an FDA-approved drug

for weight loss.

Here is where it gets difficult, and now I am speaking, not quoting Mrs. Bankston. Fen-Phen certainly had problems. The reason for litigation can be very clear. However, the rationale for forum shopping and, more importantly, how forum shopping is conducted, is what this letter and what Hilda Bankston's story is all about.

Though Mississippi law does not allow for class action

lawsuits, it does allow for consolidation of lawsuits or mass

actions as long as the case involves a plaintiff or defendant

from Mississippi.

Here it is:

Since ours was the only drugstore in Jefferson County and

had filled a prescription for Fen-Phen, a drug whose

manufacturer is headquartered in New Jersey, the plaintiffs'

attorney named us in their lawsuits so they could keep the

case in a place already known for its lawsuit-friendly

environment. They could use our records as a virtual database

of potential clients.

So not only was she not involved, they just happened to fill a prescription and they became a source for litigation.

Mitch had always taken the utmost care and caution with his

patients. As the Fen-Phen case drew more attention, he became

increasingly concerned about what our customers would think.

His integrity, honor, and reputation were on the line.

Overnight, our life's work had gone from serving the public's

health to becoming a means to an end for some trial lawyers

to cash in on lucrative class action lawsuits.

Three weeks after being named in the lawsuit, Mitch, who

was 58 years old and in good health, died suddenly of a

massive heart attack. In the midst of my grief, I was called

to testify in the first Fen-Phen trial.

I sold the pharmacy in 2000, but have spent many years

since retrieving records for plaintiffs and getting dragged

into court again and again to testify in hundreds of national

lawsuits brought in Jefferson County against the pharmacy and

out-of-state manufacturers of other drugs. Class action

attorneys have caused me to spend countless hours retrieving

information for potential plaintiffs. I've searched record

after record and made copy after copy for use against me. At

times, the bookwork has been so extensive that I have lost

track of the specific cases. I had to hire personnel to watch

the store while I was dragged into court on numerous

occasions to testify. I endured the whispers and questions of

my customers and neighbors wondering what we did to end up in

court so often. And, I spent many sleepless nights wondering

if my business would survive the tidal wave of lawsuits

cresting over it. Today, even though I no longer own the

drugstore, I still get named as a defendant time and again.

This lawsuit frenzy has hurt my family and my community.

Businesses will no longer locate in Jefferson County because

of fear of litigation. The county's reputation has driven

liability insurance rates through the roof.

No small business should have to endure the nightmares I

have experienced. I'm not a lawyer, but to me, something is

wrong with our legal system when innocent bystanders are

little more than pawns for lawyers seeking to win the

``jackpot'' in Jefferson County--or any other county in the

United States where lawsuits are ``big business.''

This is really the point. I heard the distinguished Senator from Illinois make a very important point about the different kinds of cases that are involved. But what we are talking about is forum shopping. It is specifically setting up a class action to be able to get that case into a specific place, a friendly county.

The Bankstons were actually sued more than 100 times for doing nothing other than filling legal prescriptions. The pharmacy had done nothing wrong. They were the only drugstore in the county, a county that was so plaintiff friendly, I am told, that there are actually more plaintiffs than residents.

Because of the arcane and problematic rules now governing class actions in U.S. courts, the plaintiffs' lawyers shopping for a friendly court just needed to name a local business in order to file their national lawsuit in that county. That is all it took. Before they knew it, the Bankstons were defendants in dozens of essentially frivolous suits against their small pharmacy.

This was a family torn apart by litigation. I use this case because, of all the hearings that have been held in the Judiciary Committee in 12 years, this woman made a profound impression on me as I sat there hour after hour and listened to the testimony.

Let me hasten to say that this abuse comes from just some class action lawyers--not all of them but some--who forum shop national class action lawsuits and file them in States and counties where they know the court will approve settlements favorable to them without concern for class members.

What does this bill do? The amended Class Action Fairness Act goes a long way toward stopping forum shopping by allowing Federal courts to hear national class action lawsuits that involve plaintiffs and defendants from different States and which involve more than 5 million in claims. I think the original bill was 2 million. We amended it in committee to make it even bigger so we could be sure as to the kinds of cases that would be affected.

The Framers of the Constitution wanted Federal courts to settle disputes between citizens of different

States. They wanted Federal courts to settle disputes between different citizens of different States. The Constitution itself states that the Federal judicial power ``shall extend . . . to controversies between citizens of different States.''

Historically, this meant that when one person sues another person who lives in another State, or sues a company headquartered in another State, the suit can be moved to Federal court with some limitations.

Class actions involve more citizens in more States, more money, and more interstate commerce ramifications than any other type of civil litigation. It only stands to reason that many of these cases should be heard in Federal courts. Yet an anomaly in our current law has resulted in a disparity wherein class actions are treated differently than regular cases and often stay in State court. The current rules of procedure have not kept up with the times, and the result is a broken system that has strayed far from the Framers' intent.

This bill does a number of things. First, the bill contains a ``consumer class action bill of rights''--and it is important, and you will really see it is understandable--to provide greater information and greater oversight of settlements that might unfairly benefit attorneys at the expense of truly injured parties.

Let me give you some examples. The bill ensures that judges review the fairness of proposed settlements if those settlements provide only coupons to the plaintiffs. What is wrong with that? Coupons are a real problem. They are a way by which a plaintiff actually receives very little or something that is very difficult to recover.

Second, it bans settlements that actually impose net costs on class members. I could read letters from individuals where they actually came out the losers in these suits.

Third, it requires that all settlements be written in plain English so all class members can understand their rights. How can anybody fault that? Write it so people who read them can understand what they say.

The bill also provides that State attorneys general can review settlements involving plaintiffs from their States so the consumers get an extra level of protection from someone elected to serve--not just plaintiffs' attorneys who may be trying to get the best settlement for their own interests.

Second, and of greater impact, the legislation creates a new set of rules for when a class action may be ``removed'' to Federal court.

These new rules are diversity requirements modified in committee and again since then make it clear that cases which are truly national in scope should be removed to Federal court. But equally important, the rules preserve truly State actions so those confined to one State remain in State courts.

Since I have offered this amendment in committee, the so-called diversity amendment, I believe it made it much better, more narrowly tailored. I think my amendment went right to the heart of the bill and its purpose. So I would like to spend a few minutes to talk about these amendments, how it changed the original bill and the ways in which I believe it is more clear, more fair, and more workable.

I offered one amendment, cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Kohl, and Grassley, that was meant to do two things. First, it simplifies the diversity jurisdiction section of the bill. Second, it narrows the scope of the bill by reducing the number of cases that automatically go to Federal court. This will allow Federal courts to focus on the cases that are truly national in scope rather than cases that really belong in State courts.

This amendment only addressed the jurisdiction issues. It did nothing to change the rest of the bill which contains very important protections for consumers, and it makes the whole settlement process much more fair. Let me explain it.

The original class action bill essentially moved all class actions of a certain size--I think more than 2 million--to Federal court unless ``a substantial majority of the members of the proposed class and the primary defendants are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.''

The case will be governed primarily by the laws of that State.

The original bill says that all class actions where a substantial majority of the members of the class and the defendants are citizens of the State would be moved to the Federal court.

We changed that. The standard was vague and it was prone to moving some truly State class actions into Federal court.

My amendment, which was accepted by the committee, changed the law in this section to split the jurisdiction into thirds. Now there is less ambiguity about where a case will end up, and more cases remain in State court.

Let me explain that. If more than two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the primary defendant, the case automatically stays in State court--it is clear; it is defined in the bill--even if both parties ask for it to be removed to Federal court. It is very different from the original bill. If we have two-thirds of the plaintiffs and the defendant company in a State, the case stays in the State.

If fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the primary defendant, the case may automatically be removed to Federal court. Remember, this happens if one of the parties asks for removal. Otherwise, these cases, too, stay in State court. This may have escaped a lot of people. So even when there are fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs from the same State as the primary defendant, the case remains in State court unless one of the parties asks to remove it.

Now we are talking about the middle third in this diversity. We have a third, a third in the middle, a third on the end. In the middle third of cases, where between one-third and two-thirds of plaintiffs are from the same State as the primary defendant, the amendment gives the Federal judge discretion to accept removal or remand the case back to the State based on a number of factors. In determining whether one of these middle third cases would go to Federal or State court, the amendment directed the Federal judge to consider these facts:

First, the judge must examine whether the case represents primarily a State issue or whether it is of national impact. There are strong arguments to be made that State judges should not be making national law. This provision is meant to reach into that issue.

Second, the judge must consider whether the number of plaintiffs from the defendant's home State is much larger than the number of plaintiffs from any other State. In other words, there may be a case where 40 percent of the plaintiffs from California and no other State has more than a couple percent of the class. California law would apply. So even though the California plaintiffs do not make up an absolute majority of a class, they would clearly be the predominant portion of the class. If it is a State issue, such a case would remain in State court. The Federal judge would also look at whether the case was filed in State court simply because the plaintiffs are trying to game the system, perhaps by forum shopping for the best court, even when the case would better be tried elsewhere.

Finally, the judge is directed to look at whether this is the only class action likely to be filed on the same subject--this is important--or whether there are likely to be others with the same facts at issue. This factor has been even further refined to provide that a judge need not consider whether similar class actions may be filed but only whether similar class actions have actually been filed in the last 3 years. In order to avoid duplication, the judge would look at whether there were other like actions filed in the last 3 years.

Considering duplicative class actions is important because the Federal courts have a system in place to consolidate multidistrict litigation. It may therefore be better to have all duplicative class action cases move to Federal court simply to save time and make the process more efficient. If a case stays in State court it cannot be consolidated with similar cases out of State. Therefore, we might end up with 50 State judges deciding 50 cases involving exactly the same defendant and exactly the same fact pattern. That does not make much sense. It is something that the judicial conference has recommended we fix. And we do.

The amendment also raised the minimum amount of money that needs to be at issue before a class action can

make it to Federal court. The original bill set that amount at $2 million. My amendment raised it to $5 million to further limit the number of cases that move to Federal court and to assure that it is only truly big national cases that do.

The effect of this amendment, I hope, will be to make the system more transparent so that plaintiffs and defendants know where a case will go when it is filed, and it will force truly State cases to stay in State court while allowing truly national cases to go to Federal court.

Under current law, an attorney can avoid Federal court simply by making sure that at least one plaintiff is from the same State as at least one defendant. This allows for cases to be shopped to whatever forum may have the most sympathetic juries, no matter where the case should truly be heard. Under this modified bill, this forum shopping would be eliminated.

The second amendment I offered in committee, which was also accepted and has been only slightly modified, was designed to deal with a provision that was added to the original class action bill apparently to specifically target a California law. That law allows individuals in California to sue on behalf of the general public in lieu of the attorney general. Other States have or are considering similar legislation, but California is on the forefront of this issue, so it was California law, more than the law of any other State, that was targeted by this provision in the original bill.

The so-called private attorney general actions allow groups such as the Sierra Club, local district attorneys, government officials, or even individual consumers, to sue large corporations on behalf of the people of the State. In California, these suits are generally to recover illegally gained profits or to enforce State law against companies that do business there. These are not true class actions. The original bill essentially deemed these suits to be class actions and therefore would have moved many of them to Federal court even if all the plaintiffs were in California.

This was a concern to me and to many in California who are concerned these citizen suits would be so dramatically affected by a bill that was supposed to be about class actions, not private attorney general suits. My amendment and subsequent clarifications of that amendment worked out between myself, Senators Hatch, Grassley, and Specter, simply clarify that in any case in which an individual pursues one of these private attorney general suits on behalf of members of the general public, or members of an organization, unless those suits are actually filed as class actions, the bill does not apply. I want to make that clear.

If, for instance, a California consumer sued Enron on behalf of the general public in an attempt to force Enron to disgorge ill-gotten profits and return this money to the Government of California, this bill would not change anything. The case would stay in California court.

I know there will probably be several amendments, and I have comments about some of those comments, but I would like to hold that until the amendment is actually presented.

Let me sum up and then yield the floor. Again, a simple reading of this bill is very demonstrative because it is easily understood. Unlike most bills, it is written in simple English. Probably the most complicated part is what I just went over, the diversity issue. One- third, one-third, one-third, with the Federal judge having specific areas where that judge must make a judgment regarding the middle third as to whether this is truly a case national in scope and belongs in Federal court or whether it should remain in State court, offers a viable way of settling what has been a process that has been grossly criticized, and that is forum shopping, and I think with some considerable justification.

A lot of people have worked very hard on this bill. I am hopeful we will be able to pass it. I believe the bill in itself provides a remedy to what is wrong with the present class action law, and I support it with great pride. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to share my views on this nominee to the Federal district court. I heard our distinguished chairman, a man who I greatly respect and admire, mention he was recommended as well qualified by the American Bar Association, and that he in fact could distance himself from his personal beliefs; that he is a deeply religious man, and the chairman believed he would be able to truly distance himself.

I have a very hard time believing that. If I look at his personal beliefs, they are extraordinary and they are way out of line with the mainstream of American thinking. I want to comment a little bit about them. They are not only outside the mainstream of American thinking, but they are outside the mainstream of American judicial thought as well.

Mr. Holmes has no real judicial experience. That is what makes it difficult, because there is no way we know whether he can distance himself from many of the comments he has made over many years. He is a native of Arkansas. He is a practicing lawyer at a law firm. He has done some teaching at the University of Arkansas and at the Thomas Aquinas College in my State: California.

With the exception of two instances where he served as a special judge on the Arkansas Supreme Court, he has no judicial experience. But that is not my main objection. My main objection is over the past 24 years he has put forward in word and writing philosophies that are far from U.S. mainstream opinion on a whole series of subjects, from women's rights, to choice, to race, and to the separation of church and state. These statements make him a very troubling nominee, and I have never--again, never--before voted ``no'' on a nominee to the district court. This is my first ``no'' vote in the 12 years I have been on the Judiciary Committee.

Let me give you a few examples. Let me take a subject, women's rights. Seven years ago--it is not too long ago--seven years ago he wrote:

``The wife is to subordinate herself to her husband,'' and

that ``the woman is to place herself under the authority of

the man.''

This belief, if sustained, clearly places this nominee in a place apart. But this is not merely my own view, it is the view of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which I would hope any Federal judge would uphold.

It is also the view of numerous Federal civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for which the Nation celebrated its 40th anniversary on July 2. How can I or any other American believe that one who truly believes a woman is subordinate to her spouse can interpret the Constitution fairly? When women are parties to claims of job discrimination, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and a host of other issues involving the role of women in society, how can I be assured they can get a fair hearing from Leon Holmes? What will a plaintiff think when she finds out the judge hearing her case thinks women should subordinate themselves to men?

That is a fairly crisp view. It is a view I have not seen presented, certainly in the last 20 years, in any serious way.

Let's take a woman's right to choose. Again and again over decades, Mr. Holmes has made comments that show he is solidly opposed to a woman's right to choose, even in the case of rape. Let me give an example.

In a letter that he wrote to the Moline Daily Dispatch--this is a letter he writes to a newspaper--Mr. Holmes called rape victims who become pregnant ``trivialities.''

How is a rape victim ever a triviality?

He wrote in that same letter that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.''

That might be a cute phrase but, in fact, it is grossly incorrect. Snow falls in Miami about once every 100 years, but, according to the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, each

year in America over 30,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. This is hardly a trivial matter.

Mr. Holmes' letter wasn't a one-time comment. I can excuse a lot of one-time comments. I understand how they happen. I understand how they can be taken out of context. But he has also been an opponent of a woman's right to choose for decades. Other comments he has made on the very sensitive issue of abortion are equally insensitive. For example, he said:

I think the abortion issue is the simplest issue this

country has faced since slavery was made unconstitutional,

and it deserves the same response.

In other words, end it. It is a very precise point of view.

Mr. Holmes has stated:

The pro-abortionists counsel us to respond to these

problems by abandoning what little morality our society still

recognizes. This was attempted by one highly sophisticated,

historically Christian nation in our history--Nazi Germany.

In a 1987 article written to the Arkansas Democrat, Mr. Holmes wrote:

[T]he basic purpose of government is to prevent the killing

of innocent people, so the government has an obligation to

stop abortion.

Seven years later, in a 1995 interview, with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Mr. Holmes stated:

I would like to appear before the Supreme Court of the

United States, and I would like to have argued Roe v. Wade.

In response to Senator Durbin's written question asking what Supreme Court cases Mr. Holmes disagrees with, he answered: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Buck v. Bell, and Roe v. Wade.

Dred Scott held that blacks were not people under the Constitution. As you know, Buck v. Bell held that a woman could be sterilized against her will. Those cases were abominations.

To include Roe v. Wade with these two decisions clearly indicates that he holds Roe as a decision to be abolished. This is simply not a mainstream perspective.

These comments don't sound as if they come from a man with an open mind about a most sensitive issue. Rather, they sound as if they come from a man with an agenda to eliminate the constitutional rights of American women to choose.

That is a problem for me because I don't believe someone who has these views can fairly hand out justice. I don't believe such a person should be a Federal judge for the rest of his life.

Mr. Holmes is not merely opposed to a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. He has also lashed out at contraception, against women generally, and against the rights of gays and lesbians. He wrote in 1997:

It is not coincidental that the feminist movement brought

with it artificial contraception and abortion on demand, with

recognition of homosexual liaisons soon to follow.

That is emotion-laden language. It is offensive to a whole host of a number of people. It is extraordinary language. It certainly is not a line of thinking with which I can agree. These are all areas where the Federal courts play a vital role.

He has also made some shocking statements about race in America. Specifically, in a 1981 article, he wrote for a journal called Christianity Today about Booker T. Washington. This is what he wrote:

He taught that God had placed the Negro in America so it

could teach the white race by example what it means to be

Christlike. Moreover, he believed that God could use the

Negroes' situation to uplift the white race spiritually.

Mr. Holmes first wrote those words 23 years ago. But he still stands by them. In April of last year, Leon Holmes wrote to Senator Lincoln:

My article combines [Washington's] view of providence--that

God brings good out of evil--with his view that we are all

called to love one another. This teaching can be criticized

only if it is misunderstood.

Are these the words of a man who should be confirmed to interpret the equal protection clause of our Constitution without prejudice, to interpret the due process clause, to interpret Federal civil rights statutes?

In my view, Mr. Holmes' statements also indicate that he can't separate his own religious views from the Federal law he will be charged with interpreting. This is a trait that is particularly dangerous, given the strong views he has taken.

On religion, in a speech he delivered 2 years ago in Anne Arbor, MI, he stated:

Christianity, unlike the pagan religions, transcends the

political order.

That is really food for thought.

He continues:

Christianity, in principle, cannot accept subordination to

the political authorities, for the end to which it directs

men is higher than the end of the political order; the source

of its authority is higher than the political authority.

I guess one could say that all depends on what he means by the political order. The political order produces the law and the court interprets the law.

If he is saying the political order which produces the law is subservient to Christianity, how can we feel this is going to be an open-minded judge?

He also stated in the same speech that he was ``left with some unease about this notion that Christianity and the political order should be assigned to separate spheres, in part because it seems unavoidably ambiguous.''

I have no desire to cause Mr. Holmes any additional ``unease.'' But if he is confirmed today, that is what he will have, whenever a question about the separation of church and state comes before him. The First Amendment in reality is not ``ambiguous.'' It clearly states that there shall be ``no law respecting an establishment of religion.''

My concerns go further than First Amendment cases. If Mr. Holmes becomes a U.S. district court judge, how can we be sure he will separate his faith from the law? How will the parties before him know he is basing his rulings on the U.S. Constitution rather than on his spiritual faith?

This is not a statement on belief. I respect Mr. Holmes' right to his own faith, and I generally believe that a strong and abiding faith is a positive, not a negative, factor in reviewing an individual for public service. But here, where a nominee has himself said that faith must trump the law, it would be troubling at best to grant that nominee a lifetime seat on a Federal bench where law must trump all else, if our system of justice is to work.

Mr. Holmes' disconcerting views about the Constitution go beyond what he thinks about a particular area of law. He has expressed support for the concept of natural law, which holds there are laws that trump the law of the Constitution.

Natural law, simply put, holds that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. Rather, those who believe in natural law would subordinate the Constitution to some higher law. This concept is starkly at odds with the role of a Federal judge, who must swear to uphold the Constitution. But Mr. Holmes says that natural law trumps, as I understand it, the Constitution which he takes an oath to uphold.

In an article three years ago, in 2001, he wrote:

[T]he Constitution was intended to reflect the principles

of natural law.

In response to a written question from Senator Durbin, Mr. Holmes wrote:

[M]y view of natural rights derives from the Declaration of

Independence.

Now the Declaration of Independence, which all Americans joyfully celebrated this past weekend, is the source of our Nation's liberation. The Constitution is the source of our Government and our laws. So they are separate and distinct from one another. This is a critical distinction, and I am not sure Mr. Holmes appreciates that. If he reads natural law into the Constitution, then he is not reading the same Constitution as the rest of America.

There is one final issue I would like to address. At the end of last month, on June 24, we confirmed six judges in a single day. Since the accommodation of the White House, the Senate has confirmed 24 of the 25 judges to which we agreed to proceed to floor votes. We have confirmed 28 nominations this year alone, including 5 circuit court nominations. And the Senate has confirmed 197 judges since President Bush was elected as our President.

I have always maintained my own counsel when it comes to the confirmation of judicial nominees. I do not use my blue slip. I do not make a decision until after the individual has a hearing and generally until after he or she has answered the written questions. I have always tried to see the potential for

good in the nominees who come to us. When the President nominates a person to the Senate, it is my feeling we should do everything we can to respect the President's choices, while still taking with the utmost seriousness our own constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

To that end, as I said before, I have never before opposed a nominee to a U.S. district court. I have also supported nominees to the Court of Federal Claims--Susan Braden, Charles Lettow, and Victor Wolski-- whom other Democrats opposed.

Even at the level of the U.S. Court of Appeals, I have supported nominees whom others have opposed. I supported the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit, and I was the only Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to do so. I supported the nomination of John Roberts to the DC Circuit, even though three Democrats on the Judiciary Committee opposed him. I supported the nomination of Deborah Cook, also to the Sixth Circuit, when many of my colleagues voted against her.

In all of these instances, I had confidence the nominees would interpret the Constitution and the Nation's laws fairly and without bias. And that is all I ask. I would expect these nominees to be conservative, and that is not a problem, as long as their views are not contrary to what a majority of Americans believe and the judicial thinking of a majority of mainstream judges. But I do not feel that way about Mr. Holmes.

I have no doubt he is a man of deep and sincere beliefs, and in this great Nation he is entitled to those beliefs. I commend him for his faith. But how can I entrust protection of separation of church and state, protection of the civil rights laws, protection of a woman's right to choose--all of the major values which come before a Federal court judge--with the comments he has made? Because these comments are robustly extraordinary. I would never dream of these comments being made by someone who aspires to be on a Federal court of law. And if you have no judicial experience by which to evaluate whether he can in fact separate himself from his views, it is a very difficult nomination to swallow.

As a woman, how can I possibly vote for someone to go on to a Federal district court who believes women should be subordinate to men, when that judge is going to have to look at employment discrimination, sexual harassment cases, who in the modern day and age, as a practical tenet of public thinking, believes--and believes strongly enough to write about it and say it to the world--that women should be subordinate to men and a wife should be subordinate to her husband, and expect any woman who comes before that judge is going to have fair and even treatment?

For over 20 years, Mr. Holmes has been making extremist statements on women, on race, on abortion, on the role of religion in society. His statements in each individual area, as I have said, are startling. Taken together, he has given us more than enough reason to fear he will continue to make radical statements when his words have the force of law. And that is a risk I, for one, do not want to take.

So I urge my colleagues today to join me in opposing this confirmation and voting no. It will be my first one in 12 years.

I yield the floor.

Absolutely, on all points.

No, it is not. The definition of a motion picture exhibition facility includes the concept that the exhibition has to be ``open to the public or is made to an assembled group of viewers outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.'' This definition makes clear that someone recording from a television in his home does not meet that definition. It is important to emphasize that the clause ``open to the public'' applies specifically to the exhibition, not to the facility. An exhibition in a place open to the public that is itself not made to the public is not the subject of this bill. Thus, for example, a university film lab may be ``open to the public.'' However, a student who is watching a film in that lab for his or her own study or research would not be engaging in an exhibition that is ``open to the public.'' Thus, if that student copied an excerpt from such an exhibition, he or she would not be subject to liability under the bill.

Of course not. The statute covers only a person who ``knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under Title 17, or any part thereof. . . .'' In other words, the defendant would have to be making, or attempting to make, a copy that is itself an audiovisual work, or make, or attempt to make, a transmission embodying an audiovisual work, as that term is defined in Section 101 of Title 17. As such, the Act would not reach the conduct of a person who uses a hearing aid, a still camera, or a picture phone to capture an image or mere sound from the movie.

This is a criminal provision under Title 18, not a copyright provision under Title 17. Accordingly, there is no fair use exception included. However, Federal prosecutors should use their discretion not to bring criminal prosecutions against activities within movie theaters that would constitute fair use under the copyright laws. The object of this legislation is to prevent the copying and distribution of motion pictures in a manner that causes serious commercial harm. This legislation is not intended to chill legitimate free speech.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the amendment introduced by Senator DeWine to provide humanitarian assistance for the refugees in Darfur, Sudan. Of all the places on Earth, where killing and deaths are rampant, Darfur, Sudan leads the list.

The DeWine amendment will provide $95 million to respond to the crisis, including $70 million for International Disaster and Famine Assistance and $25 million for Migration and Refugee Assistance.

In response to attacks by rebel groups in the Western region of Darfur, Arab militias, known as Jangaweed, armed and aided by the government of Sudan, launched a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Arab residents, including murder, rape, forced displacement, and looting. Over 30,000 have been killed and more than 2 million displaced.

The situation is dire. While the United Nations Security Council recently endorsed the peace process to end Africa's longest running civil war, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios estimated that 300,000 refugees from Darfur may perish due to a lack of basic food and medicine. He added that that number could reach as high as one million.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that the Administration is currently studying whether or not the rampage in Darfur can legally be defined as ``genocide''.

Whatever the legal conclusion--and in this Senator's mind the killings most certainly can be characterized as genocide--the United States and the international community have a moral obligation to provide assistance to the refugees and compel the government of Sudan to put a stop to the death squads.

It is past time for the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution authorizing a robust monitoring and peacekeeping force and demanding that the government of Sudan disarm the Jangaweed and allow humanitarian assistance to reach the refugees.

Sadly, it appears that debate over such a resolution could take weeks and put countless lives at risk. Inaction will also threaten the peace process that so many people, including the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, have worked so long to put in place.

While the Security Council waits, the U.S. Senate can act now. Earlier this month, Mr. Natsios pledged an additional $188.5 million in emergency assistance to address the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. While this amendment does not match that amount, it is a start and it will give the refugees some hope.

Ten years ago the world remained silent and stood by as the genocide unfolded in Rwanda. In the wake of hundreds of thousands of deaths, we committed ourselves to not make the same mistake twice.

The situation in Darfur is now testing the United States and the international community's will to fulfill that pledge. We must not fail those who are now facing displacement, starvation, and death. We must rise to the occasion.

Mr. President, I beg the indulgence of the Chair. If I may, on rollcall No. 148, I voted ``aye''. It was my intention to vote ``nay''. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, in support of the joint resolution renewing the sanctions against Burma. The House has overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan manner passed this resolution, and I urge the Senate to do likewise.

Last year, following the brazen attack against the motorcade of Nobel Peace Prize winner and National League of Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the United States took a firm stand on the side of human rights and democracy for the Burmese people by passing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act and imposing a complete ban on Burmese imports.

One year later, Suu Ky remains under house arrest and the military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), has failed to make ``substantial and measurable progress'' towards a true dialogue on national reconciliation and recognition of the results of the 1990 parliamentary elections, decisively won by the NLD.

As a result, the Senate has no choice but to support renewing the sanctions for another year.

Let me be clear. I do not believe sanctions are a panacea for every foreign policy dispute we have with another country.

I have long supported the reform of our sanctions policy, and, in my view, Congress should have the opportunity to revisit sanctions imposed on other countries on a case-by-case basis and in a timely fashion.

I am cosponsor of Senator Baucus's legislation to allow Congress to vote up or down on the sanctions imposed on Cuba for that very reason.

It seems clear to me that 40 years later, those sanctions have not achieved our foreign policy goals. Yet, under different circumstances and conditions, sanctions can be effective.

Burma, in my view, is such a case. One year is not a sufficient period of time to judge the effectiveness of the sanctions, and there is reason to believe that the international community is coming together to put additional pressure on the military regime.

I was disappointed that the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) did not follow the United States' lead last year and impose tough sanctions on the military junta.

Nevertheless, the EU, for one, is beginning to realize that engagement with Rangoon has failed to achieve the desired results.

Last week, the EU refused to include Burma in two lower-level meetings with ASEAN representatives and, in response to ASEAN's demand that all of its members be allowed to attend, the EU canceled the meetings.

Supporters of freedom and democracy in Burma should welcome this move and continue to urge our allies to put additional pressure on the military regime.

There is also some positive movement within ASEAN itself, including Malaysia, the country that sponsored Burma's entry into the Association and has supported ``non-interference'' in domestic affairs of other members.

Earlier this month, a group of Malaysian parliamentarians--from the government and the opposition--formed a committee to press for democracy in Burma. The group called on the SPDC to immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners and restore democratic government.

The parliamentary group stated: ``The caucus also calls upon the (Burma) government to respect ASEAN and international opinion and return to the mainstream of responsible international norms and behavior.''

Of course, we would all like to see ASEAN, the EU, and others to take additional steps to put pressure on Rangoon to respect human rights and restore democracy. But we must continue to take the lead.

I believe that by passing this resolution and renewing the sanctions on imports from Burma for another year, we will enhance our leadership in this area and rally the international community to our cause. Now is not the time to weaken our resolve.

Some may argue that the sanctions do no harm to the members of the military junta and instead place additional hardships on the Burmese people.

The military junta itself cynically suggested that the reason why human trafficking is a rampant problem in Burma--as cited in the latest State Department report--is due to the desperate economic conditions caused by the sanctions imposed by the United States.

Let us not forget that for over 15 years the military junta has brutalized its won citizens, engaged in numerous human rights abuses including rape, forced labor, and human trafficking of young boys and girls, and run the Burmese economy into the ground.

And the consequences of the regime's repressive rule extend far beyond its borders. As Senator McConnell and I pointed out in an op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the spread of narcotics, HIV/ AIDS, and refugees across the region can be traced back to Rangoon.

As South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu stated earlier this year: ``To dismantle apartheid [in South Africa] took not only commitment, faith, and hard work, but also intense international pressure and sanctions. In Burma, the regime has ravaged the country, and the people, to fund its illegal rule. Governments and international institutions must move past symbolic gestures and cut the lifelines to Burma's military regime through well-implemented sanctions.''

We cannot say for certain these sanctions will work. But we can be certain that if we do nothing and allow these sanctions to expire, the military junta will strengthen its grip on power and the day of Suu Kyi's release from house arrest and the re-birth of democracy in Burma will be put off further into the future.

We simply cannot afford to make that mistake and turn our backs on those who are looking to us for hope and inspiration.

I urge my colleagues to renew their support for freedom and democracy, Suu Kyi and the Burmese people and support this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of Senator Leahy's second-degree amendment which seeks to compel, by law, the Executive Branch to provide certain important documents to Congress.

I wish to focus on one particular issue that has been raised by those who oppose this effort--that provision of these documents will endanger our national security by informing our enemies of the details of our interrogation tactics.

I believe this objection is misplaced and the danger of compromising national security can be easily and simply eliminated.

I am a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and as my colleagues know, that committee regularly receives information of the highest classification involving our Intelligence community. Similarly, the Armed Services Committee receives information about the most sensitive of our military secrets. The Judiciary Committee receives information about extremely sensitive law enforcement matters. In short, the Congress and its committees are regularly provided the most sensitive of our Nation's secrets.

In the present case I accept that some of the documents we have sought from the Department of Justice and Department of Defense about the law, policy and procedures governing interrogations may be properly classified. In other words, I quote from the governing executive order, Executive Order 12958, which describes ``top secret'' as being information ``the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.''

But the question of classification is unrelated to the question of whether the Congress should have access to information which is needed. We have procedures, administered by the Office of Senate Security, which ensures that such information is handled properly, safely, and securely. simply put, providing information to the Congress is not the same as making it public, or providing it to terrorists.

As some of my colleagues know, I asked the Attorney General directly whether any of the material which he was refusing to provide to the Congress was classified. He did not answer my question, but if the answer is yes, then the Congress has the ability to receive such information.

It is important to focus on the issue at hand, which is what information should, and must, be provided to Congress so it can perform its constitutional role to legislate and conduct oversight. The issue is not what information to provide to the terrorists.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce companion legislation to H.R. 3638, a bill introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson in November 2003. This bill will adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of California to include the addition of the Mill Creek property.

In 2002, the California Department of Parks and Recreation acquired from the Save-the-Redwoods League 25,500 acres of forest land known as the Mill Creek property in Del Norte County, which is contiguous with the Redwood National and State parks boundary. This bill would include within the park boundary the Mill Creek acquisition and about 900 acres of land acquired and added to the State redwood parks since the 1978 expansion of the Redwood National Park boundary. There would be no Federal costs for land acquisition or development resulting from this legislation.

These lands will be managed by the same cooperative management agreement between the National Park Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. This partnership is viewed as a model of interagency cooperative management efforts and will provide for more efficient and cost-effective management of an ecologically significant resource.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and Federal officials, including Del Norte County and the Department of the Interior. Given this support and lack of controversy, I believe introducing companion legislation to be of great importance to ensure that our Redwood National Park is further protected.

I have long held a deep interest in protecting California's magnificent Redwoods. The Headwaters Agreement that was negotiated in part in my offices in 1996 protected approximately 7,500 acres of old growth redwoods, which was the largest grove of redwoods held in private ownership at the time.

I applaud Congressman Mike Thompson's commitment to this issue and hope that this bill receives strong bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live in the San Bruno area of California.

I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer.

The Plascencias have worked for years to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in anyway. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken.

The Plascencias' current date of removal from the United States is set for June 23rd.

For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed from the United States.

First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family and devotion to community.

Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the past 13 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packaging operation and several employees. The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest,'' and ``reliable.''

Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree and improved her skills to become a medical assistant. Until her work permit expired last week, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Those who have written to me in support of Mrs. Plascencia, of which there are several, have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Mrs. Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.''

Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want to send their children to college and give them an even better life.

This legislation is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and

each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community.

Christina, 13, is the Plascencias' oldest child, and an honor student with a 3.0 grade-point average at Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno.

Erika, 9, and Alfredo, Jr., 7, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, last year, the principal of Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Recently, Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.''

The Plascencias' youngest child is 2 year-old Daisy.

Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States and who through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to dramatically alter their lives.

It would be especially tragic for the Plascencias' older children-- Christina, Erika, and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life.

The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make.

Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this legislation, and asked my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit.

I ask unanimous consent that six of more than 50 letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be printed in the Record.