Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009, which will reduce demand for limited fresh water supplies by providing recycled water to 6 communities across the Bay Area.

It will make 6 additional Bay Area recycled water projects eligible for a 25 percent Federal cost-share, and expand the authorizations for two more, totaling $38,075,000. The activities authorized by the new legislation include installing new piping, storage tanks, and pump stations to convey the recycled water to a number of cities across the Bay Area.

These projects collectively will save 2.6 billion gallons per year of regional water supply by providing a new water supply of clean treated wastewater for irrigation and industrial use. It will free up the amount needed to supply 24,225 households in the growing Bay Area region. And to the regional agencies, over 3,500 local green jobs will be supported by this legislation.

The adoption of water recycling technology is an invaluable conservation method which will result in 8,000 acre-feet of new and reliable water which will reduce demand on fresh water from the Delta.

California is facing phenomenal water supply challenges that are affecting our economy, our communities and our environment.

California's water infrastructure is woefully out of date. Drought, population growth, climate variability, ecosystem needs and a broken Delta are making it even more difficult to manage our water system and deliver reliable supplies.

And unless we take action to address climate change, we could lose a significant portion of the Sierra snowpack, which stores water for 2/3 of California, by 2100.

Increasing the capability for and use of recycled water will help address California's cycles of drought and reduce dependence on water from the troubled Bay-Delta ecosystem.

Water recycling projects are already under way in several local Bay Area communities, and have qualified for Federal funding under the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. This program allows local water managers to treat wastewater and use the clean, recycled water for landscape irrigation and other uses, including at golf courses, schools, city parks and other municipal facilities. Under the new legislation, the six additional Bay Area communities would be allowed to work with the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to use water supplies more efficiently.

With the increasing strain on Bay-Delta and other natural resources, it is vital that we look to adopt innovative water recycling technologies which sustain permanent clean water supplies and support existing water resources and local economies.

Nine Bay Area congressional representatives in the House put this regional approach together, and I'd like to recognize and thank them for their leadership: George Miller, D-Martinez, Pete Stark, D-Fremont, Ellen Tauscher, D-Concord, Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, Mike Honda, D-San Jose, Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose and Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, worked together to address the Bay Area's water needs.

This bill reflects a federal-local partnership and will provide communities in the San Francisco Bay Area with reliable and sustainable water supplies, and be a benchmark for other major American cities.

Declining water supplies affects people from all across the United States. Now is the time to invest in new water technologies, such as water recycling, to meet increasing needs. Wastewater recycling is an important part of a multifaceted water supply strategy that also includes surface and groundwater storage, improved conveyance, conservation, and desalination.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Bond to introduce the Tariff Relief Assistance for Developing Economies Act of 2009 to help some of the world's poorest countries sustain vital export industries and promote economic growth and political stability.

I worked with former senator Gordon Smith on this bill in the past and I am proud to move it forward in the 111th Congress.

This legislation will provide duty free and quota free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.

The countries covered by this legislation are the 14 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Yemen.

The bill also includes Sri Lanka as an eligible country.

To be eligible for the benefits provided under our bill, a country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights. Our legislation would help promote democracy while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries of this legislation are among the poorest countries in the world.

Nepal has per capita income of $240. Unemployment in Bangladesh stands at 40 percent. Approximately 36 percent of Cambodia's population lives below the poverty line.

Each country faces critical challenges in the years ahead including poor health care, insufficient educational opportunities, high HIV/AIDS rates, and the effects of war and civil strife.

The U.S. must take a leadership role in providing much needed assistance to the people of these countries.

Yet humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts to put these countries on the road to economic prosperity and political stability.

Indeed, the key for sustained growth and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports.

Success in that endeavor will ultimately allow these countries to become less dependent on foreign aid and allow the U.S. to provide assistance to countries in greater need.

The garment industry is a key part of the manufacturing sector in some of these countries.

In Nepal, the garment industry is entirely export oriented and accounts for 40 percent of foreign exchange earnings. It employs over 100,000 workers--half of them women--and sustains the livelihood of over 350,000 people.

The United States is the largest market for Nepalese garments and accounts for 80-90 percent of Nepal's total exports every year.

In Cambodia, approximately 250,000 Cambodians work in the garment industry supporting approximately one million dependents. The garment industry accounts for more than 90 percent of Cambodia's export earnings.

In Bangladesh, the garment industry accounts for 75 percent of export earnings. The industry employs 1.8 million people, 90 percent of whom are women, and sustains the livelihoods of 10 to 15 million people.

Despite the poverty seen in these countries and the importance of the garment industry and the U.S. market, they face some of the highest U.S. tariffs in the world, averaging over 15 percent. In contrast, countries like Japan and our European partners face tariffs that are nearly zero.

Surely we can do better. This legislation will help these countries compete in the U.S. market and let their citizens know that Americans are committed to helping them realize a better future for themselves and their families.

Doing so is consistent with U.S. goals to combat poverty, instability, and terrorism in a critical part of the world. We should not forget that of the approximately 265 million people that live in the TRADE Act countries, almost 200 million are Muslim.

The impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal. Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

At a time when we are trying to rebuild the image of the U.S. around the world, we need legislation such as this to show the best of America and American values. It will provide a vital component to our development strategy and add another tool to the war on terror. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009, which will reduce demand for limited fresh water supplies by providing recycled water to 6 communities across the Bay Area.

It will make 6 additional Bay Area recycled water projects eligible for a 25 percent Federal cost-share, and expand the authorizations for two more, totaling $38,075,000. The activities authorized by the new legislation include installing new piping, storage tanks, and pump stations to convey the recycled water to a number of cities across the Bay Area.

These projects collectively will save 2.6 billion gallons per year of regional water supply by providing a new water supply of clean treated wastewater for irrigation and industrial use. It will free up the amount needed to supply 24,225 households in the growing Bay Area region. And to the regional agencies, over 3,500 local green jobs will be supported by this legislation.

The adoption of water recycling technology is an invaluable conservation method which will result in 8,000 acre-feet of new and reliable water which will reduce demand on fresh water from the Delta.

California is facing phenomenal water supply challenges that are affecting our economy, our communities and our environment.

California's water infrastructure is woefully out of date. Drought, population growth, climate variability, ecosystem needs and a broken Delta are making it even more difficult to manage our water system and deliver reliable supplies.

And unless we take action to address climate change, we could lose a significant portion of the Sierra snowpack, which stores water for 2/3 of California, by 2100.

Increasing the capability for and use of recycled water will help address California's cycles of drought and reduce dependence on water from the troubled Bay-Delta ecosystem.

Water recycling projects are already under way in several local Bay Area communities, and have qualified for Federal funding under the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. This program allows local water managers to treat wastewater and use the clean, recycled water for landscape irrigation and other uses, including at golf courses, schools, city parks and other municipal facilities. Under the new legislation, the six additional Bay Area communities would be allowed to work with the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to use water supplies more efficiently.

With the increasing strain on Bay-Delta and other natural resources, it is vital that we look to adopt innovative water recycling technologies which sustain permanent clean water supplies and support existing water resources and local economies.

Nine Bay Area congressional representatives in the House put this regional approach together, and I'd like to recognize and thank them for their leadership: George Miller, D-Martinez, Pete Stark, D-Fremont, Ellen Tauscher, D-Concord, Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, Mike Honda, D-San Jose, Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose and Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, worked together to address the Bay Area's water needs.

This bill reflects a federal-local partnership and will provide communities in the San Francisco Bay Area with reliable and sustainable water supplies, and be a benchmark for other major American cities.

Declining water supplies affects people from all across the United States. Now is the time to invest in new water technologies, such as water recycling, to meet increasing needs. Wastewater recycling is an important part of a multifaceted water supply strategy that also includes surface and groundwater storage, improved conveyance, conservation, and desalination.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Bond to introduce the Tariff Relief Assistance for Developing Economies Act of 2009 to help some of the world's poorest countries sustain vital export industries and promote economic growth and political stability.

I worked with former senator Gordon Smith on this bill in the past and I am proud to move it forward in the 111th Congress.

This legislation will provide duty free and quota free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.

The countries covered by this legislation are the 14 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Yemen.

The bill also includes Sri Lanka as an eligible country.

To be eligible for the benefits provided under our bill, a country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights. Our legislation would help promote democracy while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries of this legislation are among the poorest countries in the world.

Nepal has per capita income of $240. Unemployment in Bangladesh stands at 40 percent. Approximately 36 percent of Cambodia's population lives below the poverty line.

Each country faces critical challenges in the years ahead including poor health care, insufficient educational opportunities, high HIV/AIDS rates, and the effects of war and civil strife.

The U.S. must take a leadership role in providing much needed assistance to the people of these countries.

Yet humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts to put these countries on the road to economic prosperity and political stability.

Indeed, the key for sustained growth and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports.

Success in that endeavor will ultimately allow these countries to become less dependent on foreign aid and allow the U.S. to provide assistance to countries in greater need.

The garment industry is a key part of the manufacturing sector in some of these countries.

In Nepal, the garment industry is entirely export oriented and accounts for 40 percent of foreign exchange earnings. It employs over 100,000 workers--half of them women--and sustains the livelihood of over 350,000 people.

The United States is the largest market for Nepalese garments and accounts for 80-90 percent of Nepal's total exports every year.

In Cambodia, approximately 250,000 Cambodians work in the garment industry supporting approximately one million dependents. The garment industry accounts for more than 90 percent of Cambodia's export earnings.

In Bangladesh, the garment industry accounts for 75 percent of export earnings. The industry employs 1.8 million people, 90 percent of whom are women, and sustains the livelihoods of 10 to 15 million people.

Despite the poverty seen in these countries and the importance of the garment industry and the U.S. market, they face some of the highest U.S. tariffs in the world, averaging over 15 percent. In contrast, countries like Japan and our European partners face tariffs that are nearly zero.

Surely we can do better. This legislation will help these countries compete in the U.S. market and let their citizens know that Americans are committed to helping them realize a better future for themselves and their families.

Doing so is consistent with U.S. goals to combat poverty, instability, and terrorism in a critical part of the world. We should not forget that of the approximately 265 million people that live in the TRADE Act countries, almost 200 million are Muslim.

The impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal. Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

At a time when we are trying to rebuild the image of the U.S. around the world, we need legislation such as this to show the best of America and American values. It will provide a vital component to our development strategy and add another tool to the war on terror. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise to give some views on Guantanamo. I have had the privilege of serving with the distinguished Senator who has just concluded his remarks on the Intelligence Committee of the Senate. But I strongly disagree with him. I would like to have the opportunity to make the case.

First of all, Guantanamo is not sovereign territory of the United States. Under a 1903 lease, however, the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this naval base.

In December 2001, the administration decided to bring detainees captured overseas in connection with the war in Afghanistan and hold them there outside of our legal system. That was the point: To hold these detainees outside of the U.S. legal system.

This was revealed in a December 2001 Office of Legal Council memorandum by John Yoo of the Justice Department.

He wrote this:

Finally, the Executive Branch has repeatedly taken the

position under various statutes that [Guantanamo] is neither

part of the United States nor a possession or territory of

the United States. For example, this Office [Justice] has

opined that [Guantanamo] is not part of the ``United States''

for purposes of the Immigration and Naturalization Act . . .

Similarly, in 1929, the Attorney General opined that

[Guantanamo] was not a ``possession'' of the United States

within the meaning of certain tariff acts.

The memo concludes with this statement:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a district

court cannot properly entertain an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by an enemy alien detained at Guantanamo Bay

Naval Base, Cuba. Because the issue has not yet definitively

been resolved by the courts, however, we caution that there

is some possibility that a district court would entertain

such an application.

This set the predicate for Guantanamo: Keep these individuals outside of the reach of U.S. law, and set up a separate legal system to deal with them.

Now, was this right or wrong? It was definitively wrong, because since then the Supreme Court has rejected this position in four separate cases.

First, in Rasul v. Bush in 2004, the court ruled that American courts, in fact, do have jurisdiction to hear habeas and other claims from detainees held at Guantanamo.

Second, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, also in 2004, the Court upheld the President's authority to detain unlawful combatants, but stated that this authority was not ``a blank check.'' In particular, the Court ruled that detainees who were U.S. citizens, such as Yasser Hamdi, had the rights that all Americans are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Third, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, the Court declared invalid the Pentagon's process for adjudicating detainees and extended to Guantanamo detainees the protection from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment found in Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions.

The administration responded by pushing through Congress the Military Commissions Act. This legislation expressly eliminated habeas corpus rights and limited other appeals to procedure and constitutionality, leaving questions of fact or violations of law unresolvable by all Federal courts. This happens nowhere else in American law. But this Military Commissions Act was enacted in the fall of 2006.

That law was then challenged through the courts and overturned in the final Supreme Court decision in this area, Boumediene v. Bush, decided in 2008.

In Boumediene, the Supreme Court stated that the writ of habeas corpus applied to detainees even when Congress had sought to take away jurisdiction. It stated that detainees must be allowed access to Federal courts so that a judicial ruling on the lawfulness of their detention could be made.

Writing for the majority in the Boumediene decision, Justice Kennedy wrote the following:

The laws and the Constitution are designed to survive, and

to remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and

security can be reconciled; and in our system they are

reconciled within the framework of the law.

Several habeas petitions have been filed and reviewed in the DC Circuit since the Boumediene decision, and that process is ongoing today.

In sum, these four Supreme Court rulings make one thing exceedingly clear: The legal rights of these detainees are the same under the Constitution, whether they are kept on American soil or elsewhere.

Attempts to diminish or deny these legal rights have only served to delay the legal process at Guantanamo Bay.

In fact, only 3 of the roughly 750 detainees held at Guantanamo have been held to account for their actions.

One is David Hicks, an Australian. He pled guilty to charges and has since been released by the Australian Government.

Salim Hamdan, Bin Laden's driver, was found guilty of providing material support for terrorism by his military commission. He was sentenced to 5.5 years, but having already served 5 years in Guantanamo, he was released to Yemen in November of 2007.

Ali Hamza al Bahlul, a Yemeni who was al-Qaida's media chief, was found guilty of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism in November of 2008. He refused to mount a defense on his own behalf and was given a life sentence.

Today, there are approximately 240 detainees incarcerated at Guantanamo.

In 2007, nearly 2 years ago, I introduced an amendment to the Defense authorization bill to close Guantanamo Bay within 1 year and transition all detainees out of that facility.

The amendment was cosponsored by 15 Senators. Unfortunately, it was not allowed to come up for debate.

Within 2 days of his inauguration, President Obama issued an Executive Order announcing the closure of Guantanamo within 1 year and ordering a review of each detainee.

Let me say this: I believe closing Guantanamo is in our Nation's national security interest. Guantanamo is used not only by al-Qaida but also by other nations, governments, and individuals, people good and bad, as a symbol of America's abuse of Muslims, and it is fanning the flames of anti-Americanism around the world.

As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora said in 2008:

Serving U.S. flag-rank officers . . . maintain that the

first and second identifiable cause of U.S. combat deaths in

Iraq--as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting

insurgent fighters into combat--are, respectively the symbols

of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

I deeply believe closing Guantanamo is a very important part of the larger effort against terror and extremism. It is a part of the effort to show that Americans are not hypocritical, that we do not pass laws and then say that there is a certain group of people who are exempt from these laws.

Detentions at Guantanamo have caused tension between the United States and our allies--the allies we try to get to contribute more forces and other support for the war in Afghanistan, and they are a rallying point for the recruitment of terrorists.

So, closing it is a critical step in restoring America's credibility abroad, as well as restoring the value of the American judicial system.

The executive branch task force responsible for ensuring that Guantanamo closes within the year is reviewing the evidence on each of the roughly 240 detainees to determine the following:

Who can be charged with a crime and be prosecuted; who can be transferred to the custody of another country, like the 500 or so detainees who have already left Guantanamo; who poses no threat to the United States but cannot be sent to another nation; and, finally, who cannot be released because they do pose a threat but cannot be prosecuted, perhaps because the evidence against them is the inadmissible product of coercive interrogations.

Let me be clear. No one is talking about releasing dangerous individuals into our communities or neighborhoods as some would have us believe.

The best option is to prosecute the terrorists who plotted, facilitated, and carried out attacks against the United States.

Let's look at the record for a moment.

The United States has prosecuted individuals in Federal court for the bombings of U.S. Embassies and the 1993 World Trade Center attack. It has prosecuted individuals plotting to bomb airplanes, for attending terrorist training camps, and for inciting violent acts against the United States.

According to a report, ``In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts,'' issued in May of last year, more than 100 terrorism cases since the beginning of 2001 have resulted in convictions.

The individuals held at Guantanamo pose no greater threat to our security than these individuals convicted of these crimes, who are currently held in prison in the United States and are no danger to our neighbors, to our communities. The Bush administration had estimated that out of the 240 detainees at Guantanamo, 60 to 80 could be prosecuted for crimes against the United States or its allies. Current efforts to try these cases are ongoing.

In the event that detainees cannot be tried in Federal court or in standard courts martial, the Obama administration has recently proposed revisions to military commissions. This is an issue we are going to have to look at very closely in the coming weeks.

Our system of justice is more than capable of prosecuting terrorists and housing detainees before, during, and after trial. We have the facilities to keep convicted terrorists behind bars indefinitely and keep them away from American citizens.

The Obama administration will determine which civilian and military facilities are best to accomplish these goals. One example is the supermax facility in Florence, CO.

It is not in a neighborhood or community. It is an isolated supermax facility. It has 490 beds. They are reserved for the worst of the worst. This facility houses not only drug kingpins, serial murderers, and gang leaders, but also terrorists who have already been convicted of crimes in the United States.

There have been no escapes, and it is far, as I said, from America's communities and neighborhoods, as are just about all the maximum and supermax facilities.

This facility has housed terrorists such as Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and at least six of his accomplices; Omar Abdel-Rahman, known as the ``Blind Sheikh,'' who was behind a plot to blow up New York City landmarks, including the United Nations; Richard Reid, the al-Qaida ``shoe bomber,'' who tried to blow up an airliner in flight; four individuals involved in the 1998 bombings of Embassies of the United States in Kenya and Tanzania; Ahmed Ressam, the ``Millennium Bomber,'' who was detained at the Canadian border with explosives in his car as he was headed to the Los Angeles airport; Iyman Faris, the al-Qaida operative who plotted to blow up bridges in New York City; Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen held for 3\1/ 2\ years as an enemy combatant based on allegations that he had wanted to detonate a dirty bomb inside the United States and was later convicted of material support to terrorism; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; the ``Unabomber,'' Theodore Kaczynski; and Oklahoma City bombers, one of whom is now deceased, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

These 20 are just an example of terrorists who have been or are being held inside the United States.

So there is ample evidence that the United States can and, in fact, does hold dangerous convicts securely and without incident.

As I said earlier, I believe that not all detainees can be prosecuted.

The Bush administration had identified a second group of 60 to 80 who could be transferred out of Guantanamo, if another nation could be found that would accept them.

Again, the Obama administration is finding some success in moving these detainees abroad.

Since January of this year, there have been stories indicating that certain European nations may accept some of the detainees. A few days ago, France accepted an Algerian detainee from Guantanamo. These countries recognize that closing Guantanamo is in the best interests of everyone, and are willing to be part of the solution. We sincerely thank them.

Finally, let me address the third category of detainees, which presents the thorniest problem.

The Executive Order Task Force will likely determine that there are some detainees who can neither be tried, nor transferred, nor released. Secretary Gates recently testified that there were 50 to 100 of these detainees.

The President has the authority to detain such people under the laws of armed conflict, and he very well may need to exercise that authority. I would support his doing so.

In my view, this authority should be constrained and in keeping with the Geneva Conventions. Detainees should only be held following a finding by the executive branch that this action is legal under international law.

These detainees should have the right to have a U.S. court review this determination, much as the Boumediene decision guaranteed that habeas petitions of detainees will, in fact, be heard. That judicial determination should be reviewed periodically to determine whether the detainee remains a threat to national security and should continue to be detained.

In this, there is a protocol that I believe will stand court scrutiny and enable the President to continue the detention of everyone who remains a national security threat to the United States.

Guantanamo, despite all the rhetoric on this floor, has been a symbol of abuse and disregard for the rule of law

for too long. Four Supreme Court decisions should convince even the most recalcitrant of those among us; it is in our own national security interests that Guantanamo be closed as quickly and as carefully as possible.

The fact is, no Member of Congress wants to see, or advocates, the reckless release of terrorists, or anyone who is a threat to our national security, into our communities. It does not have to, and it will not be done that way.

Of the 240 detainees at Guantanamo right now, some can be tried. Some have been declared not to be enemy combatants. Others may need to be detained in the future, but only in a way that is consistent with our laws and our national security interests.

I believe we should close Guantanamo. I support the President in this regard. This is a very important decision we are going to make. I very much regret that this amount was in the supplemental bill without a plan, and I think that is the key. The plan was not there. How would the money be used? Nobody knew. So it fell smack-dab into the trap that some want to spring throughout the United States: That this administration or this Senate would release detainees into the neighborhoods and communities of the United States.

As shown on this chart, this supermax facility is not in a neighborhood or a community. Yes, we have maximum security prisons in California eminently capable of holding these individuals as well, and from which people do not escape.

I believe this has been an exercise in fear-baiting. I hope it is not going to be successful because I believe American justice is what makes this country strong in the eyes of the world. American justice is what people believe separates the United States from other countries. American justice has to be applied to everyone because, if it is not, we then become hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

We should return to our values. One of the largest symbols of returning to these values is, in fact, the closure of the facility at Guantanamo Bay.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with a very heavy heart that I rise today to inform the Senate of the recent passing of one of the most incredible civil servants it has been my honor to know. Sadly, Brian O'Neill, the National Park Service superintendent at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco, passed away last week following complications from heart surgery.

To know Brian was to have known an extraordinary human being; someone who was completely devoted to his profession, his family, his friends, and to the national parks he so dearly loved.

Since 1986, when he became the superintendent at Golden Gate, Brian has been the inspiration and the driving force behind the success of one of the largest urban parks in the world. What set him apart, though, was not just a talent for the day-to-day management of a national park, but his grasp of the principal that a park is far more than a circle drawn on a map. He knew early on that, for a park to flourish, particularly an urban park, it needed the support of the local community, and that the best way to build that support was through the building of partnerships--partnerships that were the product of personal relationships.

Brian understood that a single park employee could only produce a set amount of work. But if you could turn that employee into an ambassador for the park, then others could be brought in to lighten the load and advance the cause. That is why Brian often said that what he really did was run a ``friend-raising'' business. And with well over 20,000 volunteers, I would say Brian's instincts were pretty good.

Too often in what passes for political discourse today the term ``bureaucrat'' is used as a pejorative. Anyone who would suggest such a meaning obviously never met Brian O'Neill. He was, by any definition and in the finest tradition of the civil service, the consummate bureaucrat; a skilled manager whose talents, whose energy, and whose sheer larger-than-life personality will be missed. I am proud to have had the privilege of knowing Brian O'Neill.

Mr. President, I am sure I speak for all my Senate colleagues in expressing my sincere condolences to Brian's friends, his coworkers, and especially the O'Neill family.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Robocall Privacy Act of 2009.

This is a bill that is cosponsored by Senator Snowe and Senator Durbin, and that would protect American families from being inundated by automated political calls all through the day and night.

The bill would allow political outreach through these prerecorded ``robocalls'' to continue, but it would put some commonsense limits on them--to make sure that they are used in a way that informs voters, rather than harasses or misleads them.

In recent years, we have seen amazing development in technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters.

This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and new technology that facilitates communication between candidates and voters serves to bolster the democratic process. When more information is available to voters, it promotes a more meaningful interchange of ideas.

The robocall is one of these recent developments. A robocall is a pre-recorded phone message that can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a low cost through computer automation.

With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these robocalls can play a positive role in alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls.

But it is also a technology that can be abused. We all have heard stories about people being called over and over and over again at all hours of the day and night.

I believe this is wrong. When these calls are used improperly, they interrupt American families during their private time at home and interfere with their privacy rights. They can also turn people away from the political process itself.

When people become frustrated or annoyed by calls that are commercial in nature, they have the option to request to be put on the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list. To date, millions of Americans have chosen to be part of that list.

But political calls are specifically exempted from this ``Do Not Call'' registry.

The First Amendment gives special protection to political speech, because the interchange of political ideas is essential to our democracy.

For that reason, the ``Robocall Privacy Act'' would not wholly ban political robocalls. It would, however, impose some carefully drawn restrictions that I think we can all agree are reasonable.

Let me tell you exactly what the bill would do.

It would apply during the 60 days leading up to a general election and the 30 days before a primary election.

It would ban robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m.--to try to prevent these calls from disturbing people when they are sleeping or trying to put their children to sleep.

It would stop any campaign or group from making more than two robocalls to the same telephone number in a single day.

It would prohibit groups making robocalls from locking the ``caller identification'' number that is supposed to show up on many phones; and it would require robocallers to include an announcement at the beginning of each call explaining who is responsible for the call and that it is a prerecorded message. This is to prevent people from using these calls in a way that is misleading.

The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on stopping the worst of these calls.

The bill creates a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law.

The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but to not receive money damages.

A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls.

Why are these provisions so important? Let me give you a few facts and stories from recent elections:

According to the Pew Foundation, the use of robocalls is on the rise. By April of 2008, 39 percent of voters overall had received pre- recorded political calls, and a full 81 percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa had been contacted with robocalls.

As the 2008 campaign went forward, voters expressed disagreement both with the number of these calls, and with their content, saying that some calls were deliberately misleading.

In 2007, hundreds of voters in New York were woken up at 2 am because of a software programming error with a robocall. The calls were supposed to occur at 2 p.m.

In 2006, there were complaints about robocalls across the country. In the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters complained to candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, containing poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim that his voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against him.

In Illinois, voters received a recorded call about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean that did not clearly identify the caller. Voters called Representative Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--but only after the time that most voters had

hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call.

In a Maryland race, voters in a conservative area received a middle- of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, in part because of the false, late-night call.

Quantity is an added problem. Voters frequently receive multiple robocall calls a day from the same group or candidate in the days leading up to an election.

The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue-- has indicated that 40 percent of its membership says they received between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season. Some frustrated voters reported receiving as many as 37 calls in a day.

This is just counterproductive. The goal of political speech is to inform and engage voters, not to mislead them or turn them off of the democratic process.

I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and its protection for political speech, but these robocalls have become a problem. Something must be done.

I believe this bill presents the right solution--it imposes clear time, place, and manner restrictions, but it also allows campaigns and groups to use robocalls to inform voters of issues and their positions.

I think it is time for us to find a reasonable solution to these calls that are intruding on the privacy of the American home and misleading voters.

I want to thank Senators Snowe and Durbin for co-sponsoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Robocall Privacy Act of 2009.

This is a bill that is cosponsored by Senator Snowe and Senator Durbin, and that would protect American families from being inundated by automated political calls all through the day and night.

The bill would allow political outreach through these prerecorded ``robocalls'' to continue, but it would put some commonsense limits on them--to make sure that they are used in a way that informs voters, rather than harasses or misleads them.

In recent years, we have seen amazing development in technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters.

This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and new technology that facilitates communication between candidates and voters serves to bolster the democratic process. When more information is available to voters, it promotes a more meaningful interchange of ideas.

The robocall is one of these recent developments. A robocall is a pre-recorded phone message that can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a low cost through computer automation.

With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these robocalls can play a positive role in alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls.

But it is also a technology that can be abused. We all have heard stories about people being called over and over and over again at all hours of the day and night.

I believe this is wrong. When these calls are used improperly, they interrupt American families during their private time at home and interfere with their privacy rights. They can also turn people away from the political process itself.

When people become frustrated or annoyed by calls that are commercial in nature, they have the option to request to be put on the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list. To date, millions of Americans have chosen to be part of that list.

But political calls are specifically exempted from this ``Do Not Call'' registry.

The First Amendment gives special protection to political speech, because the interchange of political ideas is essential to our democracy.

For that reason, the ``Robocall Privacy Act'' would not wholly ban political robocalls. It would, however, impose some carefully drawn restrictions that I think we can all agree are reasonable.

Let me tell you exactly what the bill would do.

It would apply during the 60 days leading up to a general election and the 30 days before a primary election.

It would ban robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m.--to try to prevent these calls from disturbing people when they are sleeping or trying to put their children to sleep.

It would stop any campaign or group from making more than two robocalls to the same telephone number in a single day.

It would prohibit groups making robocalls from locking the ``caller identification'' number that is supposed to show up on many phones; and it would require robocallers to include an announcement at the beginning of each call explaining who is responsible for the call and that it is a prerecorded message. This is to prevent people from using these calls in a way that is misleading.

The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on stopping the worst of these calls.

The bill creates a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law.

The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but to not receive money damages.

A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls.

Why are these provisions so important? Let me give you a few facts and stories from recent elections:

According to the Pew Foundation, the use of robocalls is on the rise. By April of 2008, 39 percent of voters overall had received pre- recorded political calls, and a full 81 percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa had been contacted with robocalls.

As the 2008 campaign went forward, voters expressed disagreement both with the number of these calls, and with their content, saying that some calls were deliberately misleading.

In 2007, hundreds of voters in New York were woken up at 2 am because of a software programming error with a robocall. The calls were supposed to occur at 2 p.m.

In 2006, there were complaints about robocalls across the country. In the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters complained to candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, containing poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim that his voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against him.

In Illinois, voters received a recorded call about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean that did not clearly identify the caller. Voters called Representative Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--but only after the time that most voters had

hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call.

In a Maryland race, voters in a conservative area received a middle- of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, in part because of the false, late-night call.

Quantity is an added problem. Voters frequently receive multiple robocall calls a day from the same group or candidate in the days leading up to an election.

The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue-- has indicated that 40 percent of its membership says they received between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season. Some frustrated voters reported receiving as many as 37 calls in a day.

This is just counterproductive. The goal of political speech is to inform and engage voters, not to mislead them or turn them off of the democratic process.

I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and its protection for political speech, but these robocalls have become a problem. Something must be done.

I believe this bill presents the right solution--it imposes clear time, place, and manner restrictions, but it also allows campaigns and groups to use robocalls to inform voters of issues and their positions.

I think it is time for us to find a reasonable solution to these calls that are intruding on the privacy of the American home and misleading voters.

I want to thank Senators Snowe and Durbin for co-sponsoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act of 2009.

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

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Corker, Casey, Grassley, Kerry, Levin, Menendez, and Kohl, to speak about our amendment to strengthen the underlying bill's protections for young consumers, and help

address the growing problem of college student indebtedness.

During this severe economic crisis and credit crunch, many Americans--especially college students with limited incomes--find themselves relying on credit cards more than ever before.

Our amendment will place commonsense restrictions on credit card marketing to college students; provide for increased transparency in university marketing deals with credit card issuers; and, protect students from some common credit traps.

This amendment achieves four essential objectives. It will: (1) prohibit credit card companies from offering gifts to students in exchange for completing credit card applications; (2) require universities to publicly disclose marketing agreements made with credit card issuers; (3) require credit card companies to report how much money they are giving to schools and alumni associations through these agreements, and what they receive from the universities in exchange; and, (4) call upon the Government Accountability Office to study the extent of these deals and their impact on student credit card debt.

The growing reliance of college students on credit cards, and the staggering credit card debt that many students accumulate by the time they graduate, underscores the need for this amendment.

According to a report released earlier this year by Sallie Mae: 84 percent of all undergraduates have at least one credit card; the average student has more than four credit cards; 9 out of 10 college students use credit cards for direct educational expenses, and 30 percent charge some tuition to their cards; the average balance for these students is $3,173--and 82 percent of college students carry a balance each month which requires them to pay finance charges. Nearly one in five college seniors hold $7,000 or more in credit card debt.

A study by U.S. Public Interest Research Group found that college students' credit card balances have soared 134 percent in the past 10 years.

The study also found that 76 percent of college students reported stopping at a table on or near campus advertising credit cards, and that nearly a third of students were offered a free gift in exchange for signing up.

Credit card companies lure cash-strapped students with all kinds of offers. Free food. T-shirts--the most-common inducement. Frisbees. Candy. Even iPods. All for filling out a credit card application.

More than a dozen States currently restrict credit card marketing on college campuses.

In California, credit-card marketers can't lure students with free gifts; in Oklahoma, colleges can no longer sell student information for credit-card marketing purposes; and, in Texas, on-campus credit-card marketing may only occur on limited days in certain locations.

With credit card companies aiming their marketing more and more at students, we are seeing colleges and universities increasingly entering partnership agreements with these companies.

These agreements produce millions in revenue for colleges and universities, while banks get exclusive marketing access and student contact information.

As State funding shrinks for public universities, such deals grow.

We don't know much about the agreements between credit card companies and universities. But we do know that schools often receive large cash payments in exchange for providing students' personal information, including permanent addresses, e-mail addresses and phone numbers.

This enables companies to target students with precision.

Some contracts even pay universities if students have a balance on the card after 12 months, which suggests some universities stand to profit from the debt carried by their students.

The sheer scale of these contracts is astounding: Michigan State has an $8.4 million contract with Bank of America; and, the University of Tennessee has a $10 million contract with Chase.

Bank of America has agreements with nearly 700 colleges and alumni associations.

Virtually every major university boasts a multimillion-dollar affinity relationship with a credit-card company.

It is vital that schools make these agreements public.

Colleges should not encourage their students to sign up for products with high interest rates and fees that could get them bogged down in debt.

These arrangements can get students, who are just starting out, into deep trouble that can stay with them for decades.

This is shameful.

The underlying bill provides much-needed safeguards for young consumers, who too often do not have the financial knowledge and experience to manage their credit wisely.

I commend Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for their leadership in crafting this well-balanced legislation.

Under this bill, issuers are required to obtain a cosigner or income verification for anyone under age 21 that applies for a credit card.

And, prescreened offers of credit to young consumers under age 21 will be limited.

Issuers also will not be allowed to increase the credit limit on accounts where a cosigner--such as a parent or guardian--is liable unless the cosigner authorizes the increase.

These provisions will play an important role in protecting college students, and all young consumers, from deceptive practices.

Our amendment will enhance these protections.

Developing good credit is essential, and it is difficult to develop good credit without holding credit cards.

When used responsibly, credit cards are convenient, and provide purchasing power that otherwise may not be available.

But many students begin using credit cards with highly unfavorable terms, and end up ruining their credit.

Shining a light on the agreements between universities and credit card issuers not only makes good sense. It may also act as a deterrent to deals with highly unfavorable terms for students.

Parents, students and the public should be aware of what kind of deals are in place and why they exist.

Also, this amendment will address the incentive of the free gift for signing up for a credit card. Too often, students sign up for credit cards to receive a free gift, and then have difficulty canceling the card, or may face hidden fees and charges.

I urge my colleagues to join us in putting in place these commonsense restrictions to protect college students across this Nation.

Mr. President, I would like to say a word about the minimum payment disclosure provisions in this bill.

When we considered the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in 2005, we said that our goal was to balance fairness, and responsibility. I agreed with this goal, but in the end, I voted against the bill because I did not believe it achieved that balance.

Since that time, I have continued to say that we need to do more to protect Americans from abusive credit practices and to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make good, informed financial decisions.

In every Congress since 2005, I have introduced a bill to require credit card companies to disclose what the real financial effects are when a consumer makes only the minimum monthly payment on her credit card balance each month.

I am very pleased that Senators Dodd and Shelby have included similar provisions in the credit card bill that we are considering today.

The bill requires that all credit card statements include a general warning about the effects of making minimum payments, personalized information showing a cardholder exactly how much it will cost and how long it will take to pay off their balance if they make only the minimum payment each month, and a phone number that consumers can call to get a reliable credit counseling referral.

I am confident that these warnings will make a significant difference for consumers.

I think we are all familiar with minimum monthly payments--this is the amount listed at the top of your credit card statement that you have to pay each month to avoid a fee.

What people are less familiar with though, is the effect of these minimum payments.

Let me give you an example. In November 2008, according to USA Today, the average American had $10,678 in credit card debt.

Now let's take a family holding that amount of debt at this week's average interest rate of 10.78 percent. If that family consumer made only a 2 percent minimum payment on their bill each month, it would take them over 28 years and a total of $19,144 to pay that card off. And that is assuming they didn't ever charge another penny to the card--no cash advances, no gas purchases, no trips to the mall.

In the end, the consumer would have paid $8,466 in interest on slightly over $10,000 in debt.

And 10.78 percent is a relatively low rate for many Americans. Interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon, and penalty interest rates can reach as high as 32 percent.

Consumers need to know how these amounts add up.

Let me tell you one more troubling thing about minimum payments. In December, the Economist reported on a study done on these requirements.

In the study, a psychologist at a British university gave 413 people fake credit card bills. All of the bills said the person owed about $650 total, but half of them listed a minimum payment of around $8. The other half made no mention at all of a minimum payment.

What the study found was that when the minimum amount was listed, people were inclined to pay less of their total bill. In fact, among people who chose not to pay their full balance, people paid 43 percent less when they saw a minimum payment amount on their bill.

Behavioral economists describe this as a ``nudge'': By showing the minimum amount, the statement ``nudged'' the consumer to pay less than he or she would have otherwise.

Now obviously, this is good for the credit card company--the consumer ends up paying less each month but more in interest over time, and that's how the credit card companies make their profits.

But this is terrible for consumers, who can end up underwater, with huge balances owed, and not understand how they got there.

People need to know the effects of making minimum monthly payments, and this bill will finally require credit card companies to show them.

I believe the disclosure requirements in the bill will go a long way toward helping consumers make good financial decisions and helping them to avoid ending up in bankruptcy. So I want to commend my colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby, for their hard work on the bill before us today. These warnings have been a long time in coming, and I will be very pleased to see them enacted into law.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of Sal Guarriello, a decorated veteran and an incredible public servant.

Mr. Guarriello was a beloved citizen of West Hollywood, serving for 19 years on its city council and for three terms as its mayor. During his nearly two decades on the council, he was a voice for the Russian, disabled, and LGBT communities, seniors, and veterans.

Mr. Guarriello received a Purple Heart when he was wounded while serving as an Army combat medic during World War II. For the rest of his life, he strove to honor and represent the needs of his fellow veterans. In 1998, he proposed that a veterans' memorial be built in West Hollywood to honor the sacrifices of all of America's veterans, and 5 years later his vision became reality.

Before joining the West Hollywood City Council, Mr. Guarriello worked to provide affordable housing as a member of the board of directors of the West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and the West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Commission.

Mr. Guarriello also created the West Hollywood Children's Summer Olympics, initiated a successful anti-drunk driving campaign, and formed the Eastside Redevelopment Agency, which was instrumental in the successful negotiation of a plan to rehabilitate Santa Monica Boulevard.

Sal Guarriello will be remembered by his family, friends, and constituents as a patriot, a public servant, and an exceptional leader of the community.

Mr. President, I believe it is fair to say that there is a farm emergency in this country. Some of it is caused by drought, including out West where California has had, for 3 years, a very serious drought. But most of it is caused by the absence of farm labor--labor to help plant, prune, and harvest.

Many of us have listened to farm bureaus throughout the country, spoken with farmers who are losing land, fallowing land, and leasing land abroad. I think the time has come to do something about it.

Today, with 16 cosponsors, I am introducing an agricultural worker bill known as AgJOBS. This bill is cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Kohl, Boxer, Dodd, Lieberman, Bingaman, Feingold, Murray, Kerry, Bill Nelson, Kaufman, Casey, Cantwell, and Levin. It would provide farmers with the stable, legal workforce they deserve by reforming the broken H-2A seasonal worker program and offering a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding immigrants already employed or who have been employed on American farms.

This bill is supported by more than 200 agricultural coalition and immigration reform groups throughout the Nation.

Since I last came to the floor to talk about a solution to this crisis, it has only grown. The bill is necessary, and I believe Congress must act now to save America's agriculture industry.

Today across the United States, there are not enough agricultural workers to do the pruning, picking, packing, and harvesting of our country's crops. With an inadequate supply of workers, farmers from Maine to California, from Washington State to Georgia, have watched their produce rot in fields, and have been forced to fallow close to half a million acres of land, and billions of dollars are being drained out of our economy as a result.

Farmers are downsizing their operations. Many are buying or leasing land in Mexico. Others are going out of business. Quite clearly, the labor situation facing the American farmer is an emergency.

So some ask: Why don't American farmers hire Americans to do their work? The unemployment rate is high. People are looking for jobs. So why don't they hire Americans?

The fact is, they have tried and tried and tried. But there are very few Americans who are willing to take the job in a hot field, doing backbreaking labor, in temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees. That is a fact.

The other fact is that immigrant workers are the backbone of America's agricultural industry--a huge industry and a proud industry, which is now dying due to the lack of steady labor supply.

Farmers are departing the country in order to stay in business, leaving devastated farm communities behind. In California, in the Great Central Valley, farmers who once tended ``America's breadbasket'' are now standing in bread lines, with unemployment rates in their communities that are as high as 45 percent. Topsoil from fallowed land turning into dust now blows up in sandstorms and has caused periodic shutdowns of Interstate 5, the State's main north-south freeway.

As a result of Congress's inaction, between 2007 and 2008--1 year-- 1.56 million acres of farmland, once rich with crops, are now dormant. That is 1.5 million acres dormant in a year. In California alone, in the past 5 years, that amount--1.5 million acres--of production has been lost.

American farmers have moved at least 84,155 acres of production to Mexico. This is what we know of: Over 84,000 acres of farm production now in Mexico. This has resulted in the growth of farm labor jobs in Mexico; namely, 22,285 jobs to cultivate crops that vary in diversity from avocados to green onions to watermelons.

This shortage of workers is devastating American agriculture, and we need to wake up and understand what is happening. In the next 1 to 2 years, the United States stands to lose $5 billion to $9 billion in agricultural sales to foreign competition if Congress does not act to provide a workforce for the American farming community.

California has already lost almost $1 billion from 2005 to 2006. It is estimated we will lose between $1.7 and $3.1 billion in the next year. The California farm industry--the largest in America--was almost a $40 billion-a-year industry. It is deteriorating every year.

We are witnessing nothing less than the slow vanishing of American agriculture.

Ayron Moiola, the executive director of the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association, predicts that California's asparagus crops will disappear completely in the Imperial Valley if their demand for specialized asparagus planters and harvesters is not met.

Colorado farmers have estimated their State's fruit and vegetable industry will disappear completely in the next 5 to 10 years without some program to provide a sustainable workforce.

As of February 2008, 35 to 45 New Hampshire farm operations have been at risk of going out of business or being forced to severely cut back operations due to labor shortages.

This reduction in farm production would result in an estimated loss of 22,000 acres of farmland and $58 million of agricultural production for New Hampshire alone. In addition, over 600 full-time farm jobs and 4,300 jobs in agriculture-related businesses could be in jeopardy.

I say to the Presiding Officer, I hear this from your apple growers in New York, and I hear it from the dairy industry throughout America.

The situation is dire from coast to coast, and urgent action is required to halt these trends. I do not think we can afford to lose our entire agricultural industry because this has always been a central and sustainable part of our national economy. Our food is clean; there are strong pesticide controls in this country. I think most of us believe we would much prefer to buy American produce than foreign produce. Yet we may not have that opportunity.

When farmers suffer, there is a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment manufacturing, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending, and insurance. Jobs are being lost, and our economy is going to decline further as a result. Low-producing farms mean a lowered

local tax base--as farms no longer generate income and create jobs.

As can be seen from this graphic I have in the Chamber, for every job lost on a farm and ranch, the country loses approximately three jobs in related sectors that are supported by having the agricultural community in this country.

I have received a letter from the Port of Oakland, which depends heavily on agribusiness for its survival. According to the port, last year more than 750 metric tons of agricultural products, worth approximately $2.6 billion, were shipped through the port, representing 40 percent of the port's exports.

As these farms disappear, port jobs, basic jobs for people, also disappear. The central issue is not immigration; it is the bottom line of the American economy. I think Congress should be doing everything we can to prevent U.S. farms from closing down.

There is a solution, and it is this bill. This bill is well known, and this bill has been well supported in the past with a majority of votes. It is bipartisan. We can take it up and pass it today, and that would immediately help American farmers bolster the U.S. economy at a critical time.

The AgJOBS bill has two parts. The first meets the immediate needs of our farmers by creating a program that would provide an opportunity for experienced agricultural workers to earn the right to apply for legal status in this country.

The second part meets the long-term needs of farmers by reforming the H-2A program--that is the temporary worker program for the farm industry--so that if new workers are needed, farmers and growers have a legal path to bring workers in to harvest their crops.

The first step of the program requires that undocumented agricultural workers apply for a blue card if they can demonstrate they have worked in American agriculture in the United States for at least 150 workdays within the previous 2 years before December 31, 2008.

The second step requires that a blue cardholder work in the U.S. agricultural industry for an additional 150 workdays per year for at least 3 years, or 100 workdays per year for 5 years.

At the end of this time, a worker can obtain a green card and can continue to work in agriculture.

Workers participating in the program will be required to pay a fine of $500, show that they are current on their taxes, and that they have not been convicted of any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of bodily injury or harm to property.

Employment is verified through employer-issued itemized statements, pay stubs, W-2 forms, employer letters, contracts or agreements, employer-sponsored health care, timecards or payment of taxes.

At the end of 5 years, those workers will be able to gain citizenship in this country.

The blue card visa program will be capped at 1.35 million blue cards over 5 years and sunsets after 5 years.

All blue cards will have encrypted, biometric identifiers, and contain other anticounterfeiting protections. This provides, in effect, a biometric identifier for 1.35 million people who are undocumented but in the country today.

AgJOBS would also streamline the current guest worker program, known as the H-2A program, which is currently unwieldy and ineffective.

Among other things, the bill will shorten the labor certification process, which now often takes 60 days, reducing the approval process to between 48 to 72 hours.

Advertising and positive recruitment for U.S. workers in the local labor market is required by filing a job notification with the local office of the State employment security agency.

Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt.

The adverse effect wage rate would be frozen for 3 years, to be gradually replaced with a prevailing wage standard.

H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant.

The reforms to the H-2A agricultural worker program are especially important to meet the needs of year-round agricultural industries, such as dairy, which are not covered by the seasonal program.

Many say that dairy should use the seasonal H-2A program--but it does not work for that industry. They need workers 24/7, 365 days a year.

The National Milk Producers recently shared with me an economic study done by researchers at Texas A&M that will be released next week on the economic impacts of immigration on U.S. dairy farms. Over 5,000 dairy farms, surveyed nationally, with responses from 47 States, are in this study. Of these, 50 percent use immigrant labor. Immigrant labor now accounts for 62 percent of milk production in 47 States.

As can be seen from this chart I have in the Chamber, eliminating immigrant labor would reduce the U.S. dairy herd by 1.34 million, milk production by 29.5 billion pounds, and the number of farms by 4,532. Retail milk prices would increase by an estimated 61 percent.

This will be the result if we do not recognize what is a basic reality that farm and dairy communities depend on undocumented workers, who are the only workers who will do this kind of work.

This is hard for people to believe. However, a while back, we posted notices in the welfare departments of all 58 california counties that said: Agricultural worker jobs available. Please sign up here.

However, do you know how many workers came from this? Not a single one.

When I drive down the highway, down to Monterey, along the coast, and I go through the great Salinas Valley, I watch the row crops either being planted or sprayed or harvested. You see the workers in the field stooped over, hour after hour, in the sun, when it is 100 degrees or more in temperature, and you can see the specific nature of this type of work.

People think of this work as unskilled labor, but it is not. It is a learned skill. These workers have to move fast and be trained to use the farm equipment. They know how to work skillfully with their hands and move row after row, after row, down the field.

Last summer, a young pregnant woman working in the field collapsed from heat exhaustion and was taken to the hospital, where she died. Working in the field is back breaking, difficult work, and there are very few Americans who are willing to do this work.

The backbone of the agriculture industry in my State is the undocumented workforce and it is time to recognize that reality. I can't have--and Mr. President, you can't have--farmers standing in bread lines because they can't get the labor to plant or harvest their crops. The fields across America are increasingly being fallowed and this does not make sense.

Congress must stand tall and acknowledge that the basic workforce in the American agricultural community is undocumented farm labor. Undocumented workers take these jobs because they are professional and proud of the work that they do. I believe that is desirable.

This bill has previously passed with more than a majority in comprehensive immigration reform. It recognizes that the American farm industry is in crisis; that the industry is deteriorating; and that America is losing its produce. This bill stands up for American farmers and provides them with the workforce they deserve--American farmers like Toni Scully, a pear farmer from Lake County, CA.

Toni Scully experienced a devastating harvest that left much of her pear crop rotting on the ground because she could not find workers in time for the harvest.

Early last year, I heard from Dewey Zabka, an onion and potato farmer in northern Colorado who, for the first time in his company's 50-year history, had to downsize 25 percent of his production.

In the State of New York, 800 farms and $700 million in sales may be forced to go out of business or scale back their farm operations if labor shortages continue. For the first time since 1991, Jim Bittner, the owner of Singer Farms in Appleton, NY, razed 10 percent of his sweet cherry and peach orchards last year because he could not get farm labor.

For the 2009 season, California growers who anticipate a shortage of reliable labor are deciding to move away

from planting permanent tree crops, including peach, plumb, nectarine, almond, pomegranate, and olive trees. Many of these farmers are supplementing these crops with pistachios, which can be harvested mechanically.

In June 2008, The Oregonian reported that Oregon's pear and onion industries are at risk of not being able to sustain production without consistent labor.

In Yuma County, AZ, where agricultural workers earn between $10 and $19 per hour, U.S. lettuce producers were unable to find enough laborers to harvest the spring crop of lettuce for 2008.

The truth is Americans will not do the work that sustains agriculture. It is hard, stooped labor requiring long and unpredictable hours. As a result, the labor shortage will be persistent. It is not going to get better next year, unless we have the courage and the guts to stand up for a major industry in America which deserves a steady labor base, particularly during these difficult economic times. And there are examples all over the nation that Americans simply won't fill these jobs.

H. Lee Showalter, a member of the Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Board, points to the example of the largest Macintosh apple producer in New York, who is required to advertise for local labor before joining a migrant labor program. Of the 300 workers he needed to fill, only 1 American worker applied.

Willoway Nurseries, Inc. has been in business in northern Ohio since 1954. Willoway Nurseries has attempted to recruit local workers, though to no avail. General nursery workers on this farm earn a starting wage of $9.93 per hour. Yet it has been impossible for the nursery to recruit American help.

The Washington Farm Bureau reported that nearly 500 tons of apples were not picked in Washington State's apple harvests last year due to picker shortages. As Valoria H. Loveland, director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, stated in a letter to me:

The reality of our local labor market [is that] local

people who want to work are already employed, or are not

interested in doing the seasonal and physically demanding

work that characterizes our specialty crop production.

Experts estimate that nearly 80 percent of Florida's approximately 150,000 agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants. This is a $1.6 billion a year business that produces up to 90 percent of the fresh domestic tomatoes that Americans eat between the months of December and May.

Many farmers have been in business for generations. Many farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, strawberries, and apricots, just to name a few. Without reform, we will continue to see the deterioration of American farms nationwide. This includes the possibility that certain vegetables and fruits will no longer grow in our Nation, where we have stricter rules and regulations for safety.

Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. As a result, our pears, our apples, our oranges will be increasingly coming from foreign sources. This is not what America wants, but it is what Congress's inaction compels.

The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce in this country, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, and from other countries that have sufficient labor. If our farmers want to stay in business, they will continue to go to Mexico and lease land and grow crops there. We are not doing our duty if we let this continue.

Steve Scaroni has been in the California lettuce and broccoli industry for over three decades. In recent years he has moved 2,000 acres and 500 jobs from his $50 million operation in Heber, CA, to Guanajuato, Mexico. Steve wants his business to survive, and he can't hire or plant. If he can't plant, he can't pick. If he can't pick, he can't pack, and he won't be able to deliver a harvest. As a result, today Steve exports to the United States about 2 million pounds of lettuce a week. He has spent thousands of dollars to start up the new farms and to train workers to ensure that his crops meet U.S. food safety standards.

In Wilcox, AZ, Eurofresh Farms has transferred tomato crops and 150 workers to Sonora, Mexico, where tomatoes are grown and shipped to the U.S. on a daily basis.

Reforming the system means that we not only protect the agricultural industry, but also the health of this Nation. This past July, the Food and Drug Administration confirmed that a variety of jalapeno and serrano peppers grown in Mexico caused an outbreak of salmonella in the United States. This outbreak was first thought to have originated in tomatoes.

The repercussions of the outbreak were felt on farms from coast to coast. In Georgia alone, it is estimated that the tomato scare cost local farmers about $14 million in total production value. Nationwide, the tomato industry lost at least $100 million due to lower prices and reduced demand. At the same time, over the last 15 years, imports of tomatoes have increased 179 percent. Right now, almost 40 percent of the tomatoes that we eat are grown in a foreign country. Yet tomato farmers are being forced to close shop.

The agriculture industry has been seeking a resolution for the labor crisis for the past 10 years. Mr. President, I have received over 50 letters of support for AgJOBS.

I am committed to working with the Obama administration, and Senators Leahy, Schumer, and Kennedy, as well as the House champions, Representatives Berman and Putnam, and others, to support U.S. farmers and the workers who provide the skilled labor needed to plant, tend and harvest our crops.

The time is now, and the solution is before us. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of AgJOBS and help restore America's farms before it is too late.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, letters of support, and list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I believe it is fair to say that there is a farm emergency in this country. Some of it is caused by drought, including out West where California has had, for 3 years, a very serious drought. But most of it is caused by the absence of farm labor--labor to help plant, prune, and harvest.

Many of us have listened to farm bureaus throughout the country, spoken with farmers who are losing land, fallowing land, and leasing land abroad. I think the time has come to do something about it.

Today, with 16 cosponsors, I am introducing an agricultural worker bill known as AgJOBS. This bill is cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Kohl, Boxer, Dodd, Lieberman, Bingaman, Feingold, Murray, Kerry, Bill Nelson, Kaufman, Casey, Cantwell, and Levin. It would provide farmers with the stable, legal workforce they deserve by reforming the broken H-2A seasonal worker program and offering a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding immigrants already employed or who have been employed on American farms.

This bill is supported by more than 200 agricultural coalition and immigration reform groups throughout the Nation.

Since I last came to the floor to talk about a solution to this crisis, it has only grown. The bill is necessary, and I believe Congress must act now to save America's agriculture industry.

Today across the United States, there are not enough agricultural workers to do the pruning, picking, packing, and harvesting of our country's crops. With an inadequate supply of workers, farmers from Maine to California, from Washington State to Georgia, have watched their produce rot in fields, and have been forced to fallow close to half a million acres of land, and billions of dollars are being drained out of our economy as a result.

Farmers are downsizing their operations. Many are buying or leasing land in Mexico. Others are going out of business. Quite clearly, the labor situation facing the American farmer is an emergency.

So some ask: Why don't American farmers hire Americans to do their work? The unemployment rate is high. People are looking for jobs. So why don't they hire Americans?

The fact is, they have tried and tried and tried. But there are very few Americans who are willing to take the job in a hot field, doing backbreaking labor, in temperatures that often exceed 100 degrees. That is a fact.

The other fact is that immigrant workers are the backbone of America's agricultural industry--a huge industry and a proud industry, which is now dying due to the lack of steady labor supply.

Farmers are departing the country in order to stay in business, leaving devastated farm communities behind. In California, in the Great Central Valley, farmers who once tended ``America's breadbasket'' are now standing in bread lines, with unemployment rates in their communities that are as high as 45 percent. Topsoil from fallowed land turning into dust now blows up in sandstorms and has caused periodic shutdowns of Interstate 5, the State's main north-south freeway.

As a result of Congress's inaction, between 2007 and 2008--1 year-- 1.56 million acres of farmland, once rich with crops, are now dormant. That is 1.5 million acres dormant in a year. In California alone, in the past 5 years, that amount--1.5 million acres--of production has been lost.

American farmers have moved at least 84,155 acres of production to Mexico. This is what we know of: Over 84,000 acres of farm production now in Mexico. This has resulted in the growth of farm labor jobs in Mexico; namely, 22,285 jobs to cultivate crops that vary in diversity from avocados to green onions to watermelons.

This shortage of workers is devastating American agriculture, and we need to wake up and understand what is happening. In the next 1 to 2 years, the United States stands to lose $5 billion to $9 billion in agricultural sales to foreign competition if Congress does not act to provide a workforce for the American farming community.

California has already lost almost $1 billion from 2005 to 2006. It is estimated we will lose between $1.7 and $3.1 billion in the next year. The California farm industry--the largest in America--was almost a $40 billion-a-year industry. It is deteriorating every year.

We are witnessing nothing less than the slow vanishing of American agriculture.

Ayron Moiola, the executive director of the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association, predicts that California's asparagus crops will disappear completely in the Imperial Valley if their demand for specialized asparagus planters and harvesters is not met.

Colorado farmers have estimated their State's fruit and vegetable industry will disappear completely in the next 5 to 10 years without some program to provide a sustainable workforce.

As of February 2008, 35 to 45 New Hampshire farm operations have been at risk of going out of business or being forced to severely cut back operations due to labor shortages.

This reduction in farm production would result in an estimated loss of 22,000 acres of farmland and $58 million of agricultural production for New Hampshire alone. In addition, over 600 full-time farm jobs and 4,300 jobs in agriculture-related businesses could be in jeopardy.

I say to the Presiding Officer, I hear this from your apple growers in New York, and I hear it from the dairy industry throughout America.

The situation is dire from coast to coast, and urgent action is required to halt these trends. I do not think we can afford to lose our entire agricultural industry because this has always been a central and sustainable part of our national economy. Our food is clean; there are strong pesticide controls in this country. I think most of us believe we would much prefer to buy American produce than foreign produce. Yet we may not have that opportunity.

When farmers suffer, there is a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment manufacturing, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending, and insurance. Jobs are being lost, and our economy is going to decline further as a result. Low-producing farms mean a lowered

local tax base--as farms no longer generate income and create jobs.

As can be seen from this graphic I have in the Chamber, for every job lost on a farm and ranch, the country loses approximately three jobs in related sectors that are supported by having the agricultural community in this country.

I have received a letter from the Port of Oakland, which depends heavily on agribusiness for its survival. According to the port, last year more than 750 metric tons of agricultural products, worth approximately $2.6 billion, were shipped through the port, representing 40 percent of the port's exports.

As these farms disappear, port jobs, basic jobs for people, also disappear. The central issue is not immigration; it is the bottom line of the American economy. I think Congress should be doing everything we can to prevent U.S. farms from closing down.

There is a solution, and it is this bill. This bill is well known, and this bill has been well supported in the past with a majority of votes. It is bipartisan. We can take it up and pass it today, and that would immediately help American farmers bolster the U.S. economy at a critical time.

The AgJOBS bill has two parts. The first meets the immediate needs of our farmers by creating a program that would provide an opportunity for experienced agricultural workers to earn the right to apply for legal status in this country.

The second part meets the long-term needs of farmers by reforming the H-2A program--that is the temporary worker program for the farm industry--so that if new workers are needed, farmers and growers have a legal path to bring workers in to harvest their crops.

The first step of the program requires that undocumented agricultural workers apply for a blue card if they can demonstrate they have worked in American agriculture in the United States for at least 150 workdays within the previous 2 years before December 31, 2008.

The second step requires that a blue cardholder work in the U.S. agricultural industry for an additional 150 workdays per year for at least 3 years, or 100 workdays per year for 5 years.

At the end of this time, a worker can obtain a green card and can continue to work in agriculture.

Workers participating in the program will be required to pay a fine of $500, show that they are current on their taxes, and that they have not been convicted of any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of bodily injury or harm to property.

Employment is verified through employer-issued itemized statements, pay stubs, W-2 forms, employer letters, contracts or agreements, employer-sponsored health care, timecards or payment of taxes.

At the end of 5 years, those workers will be able to gain citizenship in this country.

The blue card visa program will be capped at 1.35 million blue cards over 5 years and sunsets after 5 years.

All blue cards will have encrypted, biometric identifiers, and contain other anticounterfeiting protections. This provides, in effect, a biometric identifier for 1.35 million people who are undocumented but in the country today.

AgJOBS would also streamline the current guest worker program, known as the H-2A program, which is currently unwieldy and ineffective.

Among other things, the bill will shorten the labor certification process, which now often takes 60 days, reducing the approval process to between 48 to 72 hours.

Advertising and positive recruitment for U.S. workers in the local labor market is required by filing a job notification with the local office of the State employment security agency.

Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt.

The adverse effect wage rate would be frozen for 3 years, to be gradually replaced with a prevailing wage standard.

H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant.

The reforms to the H-2A agricultural worker program are especially important to meet the needs of year-round agricultural industries, such as dairy, which are not covered by the seasonal program.

Many say that dairy should use the seasonal H-2A program--but it does not work for that industry. They need workers 24/7, 365 days a year.

The National Milk Producers recently shared with me an economic study done by researchers at Texas A&M that will be released next week on the economic impacts of immigration on U.S. dairy farms. Over 5,000 dairy farms, surveyed nationally, with responses from 47 States, are in this study. Of these, 50 percent use immigrant labor. Immigrant labor now accounts for 62 percent of milk production in 47 States.

As can be seen from this chart I have in the Chamber, eliminating immigrant labor would reduce the U.S. dairy herd by 1.34 million, milk production by 29.5 billion pounds, and the number of farms by 4,532. Retail milk prices would increase by an estimated 61 percent.

This will be the result if we do not recognize what is a basic reality that farm and dairy communities depend on undocumented workers, who are the only workers who will do this kind of work.

This is hard for people to believe. However, a while back, we posted notices in the welfare departments of all 58 california counties that said: Agricultural worker jobs available. Please sign up here.

However, do you know how many workers came from this? Not a single one.

When I drive down the highway, down to Monterey, along the coast, and I go through the great Salinas Valley, I watch the row crops either being planted or sprayed or harvested. You see the workers in the field stooped over, hour after hour, in the sun, when it is 100 degrees or more in temperature, and you can see the specific nature of this type of work.

People think of this work as unskilled labor, but it is not. It is a learned skill. These workers have to move fast and be trained to use the farm equipment. They know how to work skillfully with their hands and move row after row, after row, down the field.

Last summer, a young pregnant woman working in the field collapsed from heat exhaustion and was taken to the hospital, where she died. Working in the field is back breaking, difficult work, and there are very few Americans who are willing to do this work.

The backbone of the agriculture industry in my State is the undocumented workforce and it is time to recognize that reality. I can't have--and Mr. President, you can't have--farmers standing in bread lines because they can't get the labor to plant or harvest their crops. The fields across America are increasingly being fallowed and this does not make sense.

Congress must stand tall and acknowledge that the basic workforce in the American agricultural community is undocumented farm labor. Undocumented workers take these jobs because they are professional and proud of the work that they do. I believe that is desirable.

This bill has previously passed with more than a majority in comprehensive immigration reform. It recognizes that the American farm industry is in crisis; that the industry is deteriorating; and that America is losing its produce. This bill stands up for American farmers and provides them with the workforce they deserve--American farmers like Toni Scully, a pear farmer from Lake County, CA.

Toni Scully experienced a devastating harvest that left much of her pear crop rotting on the ground because she could not find workers in time for the harvest.

Early last year, I heard from Dewey Zabka, an onion and potato farmer in northern Colorado who, for the first time in his company's 50-year history, had to downsize 25 percent of his production.

In the State of New York, 800 farms and $700 million in sales may be forced to go out of business or scale back their farm operations if labor shortages continue. For the first time since 1991, Jim Bittner, the owner of Singer Farms in Appleton, NY, razed 10 percent of his sweet cherry and peach orchards last year because he could not get farm labor.

For the 2009 season, California growers who anticipate a shortage of reliable labor are deciding to move away

from planting permanent tree crops, including peach, plumb, nectarine, almond, pomegranate, and olive trees. Many of these farmers are supplementing these crops with pistachios, which can be harvested mechanically.

In June 2008, The Oregonian reported that Oregon's pear and onion industries are at risk of not being able to sustain production without consistent labor.

In Yuma County, AZ, where agricultural workers earn between $10 and $19 per hour, U.S. lettuce producers were unable to find enough laborers to harvest the spring crop of lettuce for 2008.

The truth is Americans will not do the work that sustains agriculture. It is hard, stooped labor requiring long and unpredictable hours. As a result, the labor shortage will be persistent. It is not going to get better next year, unless we have the courage and the guts to stand up for a major industry in America which deserves a steady labor base, particularly during these difficult economic times. And there are examples all over the nation that Americans simply won't fill these jobs.

H. Lee Showalter, a member of the Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Board, points to the example of the largest Macintosh apple producer in New York, who is required to advertise for local labor before joining a migrant labor program. Of the 300 workers he needed to fill, only 1 American worker applied.

Willoway Nurseries, Inc. has been in business in northern Ohio since 1954. Willoway Nurseries has attempted to recruit local workers, though to no avail. General nursery workers on this farm earn a starting wage of $9.93 per hour. Yet it has been impossible for the nursery to recruit American help.

The Washington Farm Bureau reported that nearly 500 tons of apples were not picked in Washington State's apple harvests last year due to picker shortages. As Valoria H. Loveland, director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, stated in a letter to me:

The reality of our local labor market [is that] local

people who want to work are already employed, or are not

interested in doing the seasonal and physically demanding

work that characterizes our specialty crop production.

Experts estimate that nearly 80 percent of Florida's approximately 150,000 agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants. This is a $1.6 billion a year business that produces up to 90 percent of the fresh domestic tomatoes that Americans eat between the months of December and May.

Many farmers have been in business for generations. Many farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, strawberries, and apricots, just to name a few. Without reform, we will continue to see the deterioration of American farms nationwide. This includes the possibility that certain vegetables and fruits will no longer grow in our Nation, where we have stricter rules and regulations for safety.

Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. As a result, our pears, our apples, our oranges will be increasingly coming from foreign sources. This is not what America wants, but it is what Congress's inaction compels.

The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce in this country, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, and from other countries that have sufficient labor. If our farmers want to stay in business, they will continue to go to Mexico and lease land and grow crops there. We are not doing our duty if we let this continue.

Steve Scaroni has been in the California lettuce and broccoli industry for over three decades. In recent years he has moved 2,000 acres and 500 jobs from his $50 million operation in Heber, CA, to Guanajuato, Mexico. Steve wants his business to survive, and he can't hire or plant. If he can't plant, he can't pick. If he can't pick, he can't pack, and he won't be able to deliver a harvest. As a result, today Steve exports to the United States about 2 million pounds of lettuce a week. He has spent thousands of dollars to start up the new farms and to train workers to ensure that his crops meet U.S. food safety standards.

In Wilcox, AZ, Eurofresh Farms has transferred tomato crops and 150 workers to Sonora, Mexico, where tomatoes are grown and shipped to the U.S. on a daily basis.

Reforming the system means that we not only protect the agricultural industry, but also the health of this Nation. This past July, the Food and Drug Administration confirmed that a variety of jalapeno and serrano peppers grown in Mexico caused an outbreak of salmonella in the United States. This outbreak was first thought to have originated in tomatoes.

The repercussions of the outbreak were felt on farms from coast to coast. In Georgia alone, it is estimated that the tomato scare cost local farmers about $14 million in total production value. Nationwide, the tomato industry lost at least $100 million due to lower prices and reduced demand. At the same time, over the last 15 years, imports of tomatoes have increased 179 percent. Right now, almost 40 percent of the tomatoes that we eat are grown in a foreign country. Yet tomato farmers are being forced to close shop.

The agriculture industry has been seeking a resolution for the labor crisis for the past 10 years. Mr. President, I have received over 50 letters of support for AgJOBS.

I am committed to working with the Obama administration, and Senators Leahy, Schumer, and Kennedy, as well as the House champions, Representatives Berman and Putnam, and others, to support U.S. farmers and the workers who provide the skilled labor needed to plant, tend and harvest our crops.

The time is now, and the solution is before us. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of AgJOBS and help restore America's farms before it is too late.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, letters of support, and list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to Gil Duran of my staff for the length of my presentation.

Mr. President, S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, is important legislation to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapons systems and other major defense systems. Chairman Levin and

Ranking Member McCain are to be congratulated for reporting this bill from their committee with strong bipartisan support.

As my colleagues know, many of our most important, and costly, national intelligence programs are acquired by intelligence community agencies that are found within the Department of Defense. Like the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence, where the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee sit as ex officio members, has been concerned for many years about the need to improve the intelligence acquisition process and its oversight in order to ensure we are making maximum best use of intelligence resources.

The Congress looks to the Director of National Intelligence to manage and be accountable for major systems acquisitions funded by the National Intelligence Program, NIP, even though these acquisitions are executed in other departments and agencies of the Federal Government. While many of us have had concerns about the implementation of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRPTA, of 2004, the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, and the establishment of the roles and responsibilities of that office were important accomplishments that we on the Intelligence Committee wish to see strengthened through robust implementation of the provisions of that act.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act gave the DNI broad acquisition authorities over the NIP, but for NIP programs conducted within the DOD, the act required that the DNI and the Secretary of Defense share these authorities. Specifically, the act required: ``For each intelligence program within the National Intelligence Program for the acquisition of a major system, the Director of National Intelligence shall . . . serve as exclusive milestone decision authority, except that with respect to the Department of Defense programs the Director shall serve as milestone decision authority jointly with the Secretary of Defense or the designee of the Secretary.''

Subsequently, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed in a memorandum of agreement, MOA, signed in March 2008 that this joint milestone decision authority would be extended to majority NIP-funded acquisition programs as well. They agreed that wholly and majority NIP-funded acquisition programs would be executed according to intelligence community acquisition policy. The MOA states that its purpose is to provide for ``a single acquisition process'' for programs covered by it. I am sure that we will all agree, as the DNI and the Secretary of Defense have done, that it is vitally important that these important intelligence acquisitions be governed by a clear process with clear lines of responsibility as provided for by the MOA.

The MOA of the DNI and Secretary of Defense was later implemented in DOD Instruction No. 5000.2 on December 8, 2008.

It should also be pointed out that in fact wholly and majority NIP- funded major system acquisitions executed in accordance with intelligence community acquisition policies are now usually deemed to be ``highly sensitive classified programs'' under title 10 U.S.C. 2430

Because S. 454 would cover all ``major defense acquisition programs'' within the meaning of title 10 U.S.C. 2430, not just major weapons systems, I appreciate Chairman Levin agreeing to this colloquy to clarify the impact of the legislation on NIP-funded acquisition programs executed within the Department of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, is it the case that S. 454 would not extend DOD's jurisdiction to any programs over which it does not already have authority and that to the extent that NIP programs are outside the DOD acquisition system today, they would not be brought into the DOD acquisition system by this bill?

Mr. Chairman, do you further agree that this bill is not intended to change the DNI's roles and responsibilities under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004 or to require revision of the March 2008 memorandum of agreement between the DNI and Secretary of Defense concerning NIP-funded acquisition programs?

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and manager of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the millions of Asian Pacific Islander Americans for their significant contributions and service to strengthen this great Nation, and to join the Nation in celebrating Asian Pacific Islander American Heritage Month.

This month-long tribute would not be complete without recognizing the visionaries who founded Asian Pacific Islander American Heritage Month: U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, former U.S. Senator Spark Matsunaga, former Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, and former U.S. Representative Frank Horton. As a result of their steadfast leadership, a joint resolution established Asian Pacific Island American Heritage Week in 1978, and the celebration was later expanded to an entire month in 1992.

This celebration takes place in May to mark the first Japanese immigrants' arrival in America in 1842, as well as the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869--which would not have been finished without the hard work and dedication of Chinese laborers.

Today, our Nation faces its trials and tribulations as it sees harsh economic times. People throughout the country are losing their homes and their jobs and we must come together as a community and remain strong and dignified. The Asian Pacific Islander American community constitutes one of the fastest growing minority communities in the United States, with over 13 million Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the country. Despite these economic hardships, members of the Asian Pacific Islander American community have continued to take positions of leadership and have worked hard to secure a brighter future for all.

Asian Pacific Islander Americans are making great strides both in the private and public sectors. Members of the Asian Pacific Islander American community have been named to key appointments in President Barack Obama's administration and at other levels of government. As Asian Pacific Islander Americans advance to positions of power and leadership, we can ensure that the voice of the community is being heard.

While we celebrate the many accomplishments and the promising future of the Asian Pacific Islander American community, we must not forget the history of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in this country. The Angel Island Immigration Station has a significant place in Asian Pacific Islander American history. Declared a National Historic Landmark in 1997, Angel Island served as the entry point in the West for over 1 million immigrants from 1910-1940. This includes approximately 175,000 Chinese immigrants who were detained at Angel Island before they were granted entry to San Francisco. Along with Representative Lynn Woolsey, I sponsored the Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act, which passed in both the House and the Senate in 2005, authorizing $15 million of federal funds for the Angel Island Immigration Station Preservation Project. After 3\1/2\ years since it was closed for restoration, Angel Island reopened this February and will educate the public about the immigration experience and the significance that it holds for many immigrant families today.

After the recent passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, benefits were finally granted to long-time Filipino veterans of World War II. The act recognizes the service of these veterans and includes a provision which allocates $198 million to the Filipino veterans for their defense of the Philippines, a commonwealth under the United States during World War II. We must praise and commend these brave soldiers for the sacrifices they made during their service in the Armed Forces.

The idea of family is important to Americans and continues to be at the center of the Asian Pacific Islander American value system. It is imperative that we do what we can to keep families united to ensure that immigrants and children receive the support to sustain a livelihood in the United States.

I have continued to support immigration initiatives, such as comprehensive immigration reform and have supported family reunification. I authored legislation to reform the treatment of unaccompanied immigrant children who are in Federal immigration custody. The bill gives unaccompanied minors access to pro bono legal counsel and requires family reunification whenever possible.

We must recognize that the Asian Pacific Islander American community is diverse, not only in language, culture and foods, but in education and socio-economic levels as well. That is why it is so important to provide talented students who have clearly embraced the American dream the incentive to take the path toward being a responsible, contributing member in our civic society.

I have cosponsored the DREAM Act of 2009 to give undocumented high school students who wish to attend college or serve in the Armed Forces an opportunity to adjust to a lawful status and pursue these goals. If it becomes law, the DREAM Act would help Asian Pacific Islander Americans and others triumph over adversity.

As future generations of Asian Pacific Islander Americans continue to strive for excellence in our educational system, economy, and communities, I am pleased to honor and distinguish the many triumphs and accomplishments of the Asian Pacific Islander American community and their role in shaping our Nation's identity.