A bill to authorize the President to agree to certain amendments to the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank.

Mr. President, I rise today with colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Dayton to introduce the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2003, legislation that provides a comprehensive blueprint for addressing the needs of our Nation's children.

When Representative George Miller and I introduced the Act to Leave No Child Behind in the last Congress, in May of 2001, this Nation was looking at an unprecedented Federal budget surplus of some $5.6 trillion that Federal budget experts forecasted for the years 2002- 2011.

But, just 2 years later, that projected surplus is gone. Instead, Federal budget experts now predict a deficit of more than $2 trillion for those years, the worst fiscal reversal in our history.

Where did the money go?

Obviously, the current economic slowdown has had an impact insofar as it has caused a drop in Federal receipts. However, much of the surplus was lost to an enormous tax bill that contained mostly tax breaks for the largest companies and most affluent individuals, which was enacted during the spring of 2001.

And now, to make matters worse, the President is calling for more tax breaks, again, mostly to be enjoyed by the wealthy, which Federal budget experts estimate will cost $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

At the same time, the President has proposed to severely weaken our Nation's efforts on behalf of families and children, particularly poor families with children.

I listened to the President call for a more compassionate America in his State of the Union Address. Little did I expect that he was calling for others to be compassionate so that he would not have to be.

The budget that we received from the President earlier this month is the worst I have seen for families with children in decades.

Despite the fact that millions of parents struggle with the cost of child care, that the majority of States have long waiting lists, and that we vastly need to improve the quality of care, the President proposes to freeze child care assistance in each of the next five years.

At the same time, the President proposes to increase the number of hours that parents on welfare are required to work and increase the overall number of parents on welfare who are required to work. All of this is without a dime more for child care.

Who is going to watch these children? It is an undeniable fact that additional work requirements will cause an increase in the amount of child care parents need. And, additional hours of child care cost money.

The risk is that States will rob Peter to pay Paul. They will shift child care assistance from the working poor, many of whom might be former welfare recipients, to help those on welfare meet their child care costs. This makes no sense.

For Head Start, the President proposes a modest increase, barely enough to cover inflation despite the fact that Head Start reaches only 60 percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-old children and only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers.

In lieu of a real expansion in the program, the President proposes giving current Head Start funds used by community programs to States. This would mean that after 38 years of success, Head Start would no longer be a national program, with national performance standards, offering comprehensive services to our Nation's poorest children--those most likely to be struggling once in school.

Head Start works. Study after study shows the gains Head Start children make. Since Head Start graduates make up only 8 percent of incoming kindergarten students, it makes no sense to raid the Head Start money to reach the other 92 percent of children who are not in Head Start. And yet, that could very well be the result of the President's proposal.

What we know in our country is that many of our young people need a safe place to go after school, particularly at-risk youth who would otherwise be likely to go home alone, where in the absence of adult supervision, they are more likely to smoke, drink, have sex, or engage in crime. And yet, the President proposes to cut the 21st Century after-school program by $400 million. That cut would cause some 570,000 children to be discharged next year from after-school programs across America.

The President proposes deep cuts in Federal housing assistance, allowing States to receive foster care as a block grant instead of individual payments based on children actually in foster care, and potentially eliminating health insurance for millions of children through a block grant of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

At the same time, according to the National Governor's Association, State economies are on the whole in the worst shape since World War II. States are operating with billions of dollars in the red with State constitutional requirements to balance their budgets.

It is clear what is going on here.

Instead of providing more resources to help States during these tough times, the President is raiding poverty programs for children and using that money to help pay for tax benefits for those who are at the very top of the income scale. This reckless policy only worsens the budget shortfalls facing so many States.

Children are one-quarter of our population. But, they are 100 percent of our future. It makes no sense to shortchange our investment in children.

America's children today are living under some staggering challenges. Nearly 12 million children live in poverty; over 9 million children have no health coverage; about 7 million children go home alone each week after school; and, nearly 1 million children are abused and neglected.

We can do better for our children. We should do better for children. We don't need another tax break for America's wealthiest citizens. What we need is a sound investment in our Nation's children.

The legislation we are introducing today is called, ``An Act to Leave No Child Behind.'' We are committed to this one principle beyond all others. Not just a slogan, but as a means to define an urgent national priority.

We need to make sure that we not only talk about leaving no child behind, but that we actually take steps to do so. Introducing this bill is the first such step.

Every word on every page is focused on the same purpose--lifting our children up, giving each child an opportunity, helping each child to have a safe and rewarding life.

Under the Act to Leave No Child Behind, every child in America would have health coverage. No child in America would go to bed at night aching from hunger. We would use our tax code to lift millions of children out of poverty--not provide more hand-outs for the most wealthy in this country.

It's time to ensure that every American child has an opportunity to attend Head Start, Pre-K, or quality child care to begin a lifetime of learning. It's time to ensure that every American child can read by 4th grade, and read at grade level. And, it's time to take dramatic new steps to address the needs of children who are abused and neglected every year.

Budget experts predict that the President's tax plan will give millionaires an average tax break of $88,800 each. For that same amount of money, we could fully fund Head Start and provide health insurance to every one of the 9 million uninsured children.

We have the resources. If we can afford to give $88,800 on average to every millionaire, then the question is really about priorities and political will--not resources.

If we join together, we can transform this Nation and give each and every child his God-given right to grow and flourish to all he can be, to his or her fullest potential so that all children can realize their dreams.

I ask unanimous consent to have a summary of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise with our colleague Senator Lieberman today to reintroduce two pieces of legislation intended to improve the process by which the Federal Government

acknowledges the sovereign rights of American Indians and their tribal governments. The first bill is called the Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, or the TRIBE Act. The second bill I am introducing is a bill to provide assistance grants to financially needy tribal groups and municipalities so that those groups and towns can more fully and fairly participate in certain decision-making processes at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I offer these bills with a renewed sense of hope, knowing that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native peoples. Senator Campbell and Senator Inouye have provided invaluable leadership on this issue. The bills I am reintroducing were the subject of a hearing before the Indian Affairs Committee last fall. While neither bill was reported out of Committee before the end of the last Congress, I hope that the Indian Affairs Committee will continue its work on these and related bills--including Senator Campbell's recently introduced tribal recognition bill--and will see fit to address the problems that currently plague the recognition process.

Currently, there are some 200 petitions pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs by groups from throughout our Nation seeking Federal recognition as Indian tribes. Nine of these are in the State of Connecticut. These are in addition to the two tribes already recognized in our State: the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the Mohegan Tribal Nation.

I want to emphasize that as a State, Connecticut has embraced its two established and federally recognized tribes--the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the Mohegan Tribe. They have generated thousands of jobs for Connecticut residents--primarily in the gaming industry. In fact, Foxwoods Casino, owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, is the largest gambling casino in the world. Both tribes have delivered hundreds of millions of dollars into the treasuries of our State and towns dollars that have been used to help meet needs in housing, health care, education, and transportation for people throughout the State.

Like any large enterprise, these casinos have placed significant demands on the roadways, water systems, and police and fire departments. By some estimates, an average of 20,000 to 40,000 people visit these two casinos every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

Clearly, Federal recognition is an important legal status that can profoundly change both Indian and non-Indian communities. Our experience in Connecticut has taught us that Federal recognition is too important to be treated lightly.

I would not be back before the Senate to address this issue if I did not believe that there are serious defects in the process for tribal recognition. This is a significant issue for Connecticut, but it is also a matter of concern for the entire country. The tribal recognition process is broken. And the process is harming communities and tribes across the country.

The problems with the current recognition process have been well documented and I do not intend to restate all that has been said and written about the subject in recent years. Suffice it to say that it is widely recognized that the process is failing both tribal groups and other interested parties. The General Accounting Office, in a highly- critical study released in November 2001, summarized the problem when it concluded that ``because of weaknesses in the recognition process, the basis for BIA's tribal recognition decisions is not always clear and the length of time involved can be substantial.''

Senator Campbell, Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, has eloquently pointed out the irony that descendants of native peoples who have lived in North America for thousands of years are the only Americans that must be ``documented'' to prove their status. How much more bitter that irony has become now that a process established to be fair and considerate toward native peoples is, in many ways, working against them. Let me share with our colleagues some compelling facts, which I have referenced here on the floor of the Senate before.

Decisions on tribal petitions do not take months to make. They typically take years--and sometimes decades, thanks to understaffing and the demands of complying with FOIA requests and litigation. At its current pace, it will take well over 100 years for BIA to clear just its existing backlog of tribal recognition petitions. Can you imagine any group of Americans having to wait years or decades to have their legal rights vindicated? We would not and do not tolerate those kinds of delays in other areas of federal administrative law. Yet they are commonplace with respect to groups seeking Federal tribal status.

Tribes, towns, and other interested parties have often had their evidentiary submissions ignored. During consideration of two recent petitions, the BIA decided it would no longer accept evidence submitted on the petitions--but the agency failed to tell interested parties for eleven months. In the meantime, neighboring parties and other interested parties had spent large sums of time and money to submit voluminous additional evidence bearing on whether or not the petitions should have been granted.

In some cases, the seven mandatory criteria for recognition have been selectively ignored by BIA. In the case of the Eastern Pequot and Paucatuck Eastern Pequot petitions, two of the seven criteria for recognition were waived by the then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. According to published reports, he effectively ignored the recommendations of the historians and genealogists on his staff who had found that those criteria had not been met. In another case, there was a 70-year period during which a petitioner could produce no evidence that it continuously existed as a distinct community exhibiting political authority. The BIA's technical staff concluded that a 70-year gap was too long to support a finding of continuous existence. Despite the lack of evidence, the Assistant Secretary decided that continuous existence could be presumed, and so he went on to deem this criterion to be met and to recognize the tribe.

Again, the bottom line is that the recognition process is broken. Last year, one of our colleagues--a long-time champion for American Indian causes--called the current recognition process a ``scandal.'' I agree and I think it's bad public policy to allow Federal agencies to continue to make decisions when their decision-making procedures are so flawed.

The current process is arcane, burdensome, time consuming, difficult to understand, and too easily manipulated for political purposes. The evidence is overwhelming that the rules of recognition are being applied strictly for some and bent or ignored altogether for others. That's wrong. That's unfair. The Chairwoman of the Duwamish Tribe of Washington State has said she and her people ``have known and felt the effects of 20 years of administrative inaccuracies, delays and the blase approach in . . . handling and . . . processing the Duwamish petitions.'' Because the process is so complicated and so different from other, more familiar, administrative procedures, it is hard for people to have confidence in the BIA's decisions--especially when the BIA appears to be applying the rules differently in different cases.

The reforms proposed by the TRIBE Act are modest. The TRIBE Act will permit any Indian group in the continental United States that desires to be acknowledged as an Indian Tribe to file a petition with the BIA. If the group can satisfy the mandatory criteria for federal acknowledgment, then the group would be recognized.

The legislation simply requires better notice to Indians and non- Indian groups. It provides for better fact-finding and it requires the Secretary to publish a complete explanation of final decisions regarding documented petitions. The bill improves the recognition process in the following specific ways: first, it would authorize $10 million per year to better enable the Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider petitions in a thorough, fair, and timely manner. Second, it would provide for improved notice of a petition to key persons who may have an interest in a petition, including: the governor and attorney general of the state where a tribe seeks recognition; other tribes; and elected leaders of towns in the vicinity of a tribe seeking recognition, third, it would require that a petitioner meets each of the seven mandatory criteria for federal recognition

spelled out in the current Code of Federal Regulations, and fourth, it would require that a decision on a petition be published in the Federal Register, which would include a detailed explanation of the findings of fact and of law with respect to each of the seven mandatory criteria for recognition.

I want to emphasize what this legislation would not do. It would not revoke or in any way alter the status of tribes whose petitions for federal recognition have already been granted. It would not restrict in any way the existing prerogatives and privileges of such tribes. Tribes will retain their right to self-determination consistent with their sovereign status. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the TRIBE Act will not dictate outcomes or micro-manage the agency.

As I have often said, I believe that every tribal Government that is entitled to recognition should be recognized and should be recognized in an appropriately speedy process. But I also think we have to make sure that the BIA's conclusions are accurate so there won't be endless questions and disputes over the Bureau's decisions. Every recognition decision carries with it a legal significance that should endure forever. Each recognition decision made by the BIA is a foundation upon which relationships between tribes and States, tribes and towns, Indians and non-Indians will be built for generations to come. We need to make sure that the foundation upon which these lasting decisions are built is sound and will withstand the test of time. We as a Nation cannot afford to build relationships between sovereigns on the shifting sands of a broken bureaucratic procedure.

Let me close with a word about the second bill I am introducing. This bill will provide grants to allow poor tribes and municipalities an opportunity to effectively participate in important decision-making processes. When the Federal Government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, makes decisions that will change communities, it is only right that the government should provide a meaningful opportunity for those communities, whether tribal or non-tribal, to be heard.

As we consider how best to reform the process for tribal recognition, we ought to be guided by the firm principles embedded in the bills I am offering here today: fairness, openness, respect, and a common interest in bettering the quality of life for all Americans. I look forward to discussing these and other ideas with Chairman Campbell, Senator Inouye, and my colleagues here in the Senate, tribal leaders, and others who believe the time for reform has come.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce with Senator Snowe a bipartisan bill that will repeal a rider in the Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report. After the Conference Committee met and behind closed doors, this special interest rider gutted the organic standards just recently enacted by U.S. Department of Agriculture. Thirty four Senators, and counting, from both parties are joining me to repeal this special interest provision and restore credibility to the USDA organic standards.

I understand this special interest provision was inserted into the bill on behalf of a single producer who essentially wants to hijack the ``organic'' certification label for his own purposes. He wants to get a market premium for his products, without actually being an organic product.

This provision will allow producers to label their meat and dairy products ``organic'' even though they do not meet the strict criteria set forth by USDA, including the requirement that the animals be fed organically grown feed. This approach was considered and outright rejected by USDA last June. The entire organic industry opposed this weakening of the organic standards. If beef, poultry, pork and dairy producers are able to label their products as ``organic'' without using organic feed, which is one of the primary inputs, then what exactly is organic about the product?

This provision is particularly galling because so many producers have already made the commitment to organic production. For most, this is a huge financial commitment on their part. I have already heard from some large producers--General Mills, Tyson Foods--as well as scores of farmers from Vermont and around the country who are enraged by this special loophole included for one company that does not want to play by the rules.

My legislation strikes this rider from the Omnibus Appropriations Act and I hope to move it through Congress quickly before it does gut the organic meat and dairy industry. We need to send a message to all producers that if you want to benefit from the organic standards economically, you must actually meet them. When I included the ``The Organic Foods Production Act'' in the 1990 farm bill, it was because farmers recognized the growing consumer demand for organically produced products, but needed a tool to help consumers know which products were truly organic and which were not. The Act directed USDA to set minimum national standards for products labeled ``organic'' so that consumers could make informed buying decisions. The national standard also reassured farmers selling organically produced products that they would not have to follow separate rules in each state, and that their products could be labeled ``organic'' overseas.

The new standards have been enthusiastically welcomed by consumers, because through organic labeling they now can know what they are choosing and paying for when they shop. This proposal to weaken the organic standards would undermine public confidence in organic labeling, which is less than a year old.

Getting the organic standards that are behind the ``USDA Organic'' label right was a long and difficult process, but critically important to the future of the industry. Along the way, some tried to allow products treated with sewer sludge, irradiation, and antibiotics to be labeled ``organic.'' The public outcry against this was overwhelming. More than 325,000 people weighed in during the comment period, as did I. The groundswell of support for strong standards clearly showed that the public wants ``organic'' to really mean something. Those efforts to hijack the term were defeated and this one should be too.

Consumers and producers rely on the standard. I hope more members will cosponsor my bill and send a message to special interests that they cannot hijack the organic industry through a rider on the spending bill. We need to fix this mistake and restore integrity to our organic standards.

Mr. President, I proudly rise today to introduce the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003. I thank Senators Graham of South Carolina, Collins, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Schumer, Durbin, Landrieu, Nelson of Florida, Clinton and Snowe for joining me as original cosponsors of this multi-partisan legislation that will improve the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Program by allowing families of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes to qualify for Federal survivor benefits.

I want to begin by thanking each of our Nation's brave firefighters, emergency medical rescuers and law enforcement officers for the jobs they do for the American public day in and day out. Our public safety officers are often the first to respond to any crime or emergency situation. On September 11, the Nation saw that the first on the scene at the World Trade Center were the heroic firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel of New York City. These real-life heroes, many of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice, remind us of how important it is to support our state and local public safety partners.

I commend Congressmen Etheridge, Weldon, Hoyer and Oxley for their leadership and fortitude during the last Congress on an identical bill in the House. I look forward to working with them again during the 108th Congress on this important legislation.

Last year, both the House and Senate versions of this legislation received the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, Congressional Fire Services Institute, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire Fighters, National Fire Protection Association, National Volunteer Fire Council, North American Fire Training Directors, International Fire Buff Associates, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, American Ambulance Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, along with over 50 additional national organizations. I thank all of these organizations for their unwavering support for this legislation.

Public safety officers are among our most brave and dedicated public servants. I applaud the efforts of all members of fire, law enforcement, and rescue organizations nationwide who are the first to respond to more than 1.6 million emergency calls annually whether those calls involve a crime, fire, medical emergency, spill of hazardous materials, natural disaster, act of terrorism, or transportation accident without reservation. They act with an unwavering commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens, and are forever willing to selflessly sacrifice their own lives to provide safe and reliable emergency services to their communities. Sadly, this dedication to service can result in tragedy, as was evident by the bravery displayed on September 11, 2001, when scores of first responders raced to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with no other goal but to save lives.

Every year, hundreds of public safety officers nationwide lose their lives and thousands more are injured while performing duties that subject them to great physical risks. And while we know that PSOB benefits can never be a substitute for the loss of a loved one, the families of all our fallen heroes deserve to collect these funds.

The PSOB Program was established in 1976 to authorize a one-time financial payment to the eligible survivors of Federal, State, and local public safety officers for all line-of-duty deaths.

Two years ago, Congress improved the PSOB Program by streamlining the process for families of public safety officers killed or injured in connection with prevention, investigation, rescue or recovery efforts related to a terrorist attack. We also retroactively increased the total benefits available by $100,000 as part of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The PSOB Program currently provides approximately $262,000 in benefits to the families of law enforcement officers, firemen, emergency response squad members, and ambulance crew members who are killed in the line of duty.

Unfortunately, the issue of covering heart attack and stroke victims in the PSOB Program was not addressed at that time.

When establishing the PSOB Program, Congress placed only three limitations on the payment of benefits. No award could be paid, first, if the death was caused by the intentional misconduct of the officer or by such officer's intention to bring about his own death; second, if voluntary intoxication of the officer was the proximate cause of such officer's death; or, third, to any person otherwise entitled to a benefit if such person's action was a substantial contributing factor to the death of the officer.

In years following, however, the Justice Department began to interpret the Program's guidelines to exclude from benefits the survivors of public safety officer who die of a heart attack or stroke while acting in the line of duty, arguing that the attack must be accompanied by a traumatic injury, such as a wound or other condition of the body caused by external force, including injuries by bullets, smoke inhalation, explosives, sharp instruments, blunt objects or other physical blows, chemicals, electricity, climatic conditions, infectious diseases, radiation, and bacteria. Barred are those who suffer from occupational injuries, such as stress and strain.

Service-connected heart, lung, and hypertension conditions are silent killers of public safety officers nationwide. The numerous hidden health dangers dealt with by police officers, firefighters and emergency medical personnel are widely recognized, but officers face these dangers in order to carry out their sworn duty to serve and protect their fellow citizens.

Our multi-partisan bill would effectively erase any distinction between traumatic and occupational injuries. The Hometown Heroes bill will fix the loophole in the PSOB Program to ensure that the survivors of public safety officers who die of heart attacks or strokes in the line of duty or within 24 hours of a triggering effect while on duty regardless of whether a traumatic injury is present at the time of the heart attack or stroke are eligible to receive financial assistance.

I was serving my first term in the Senate when this program was established, and I firmly believe that this is what Congress meant for the survivors of our Nation's first responders to receive through the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program.

Heart attack and cardiac related deaths account for almost half of all firefighter fatalities between 45-50 deaths and an average of 13 police officer deaths each year. Yet the families of these fallen heroes are rarely eligible to receive PSOB benefits.

In January 1978, special Deputy Sheriff Bernard Demag of the Chittenden County Sheriff's Office in Vermont suffered a fatal heart attack within two hours of his chase and apprehension of an escaped juvenile whom he had been transporting. Mr. Demag's family spent nearly two decades fighting in court for workers' compensation death benefits all to no avail. Clearly, we should be treating surviving family members of officers who die in the line of duty with more decency and respect.

Public safety is dangerous, exhausting, and stressful work. A first responder's chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke greatly increase when he or she puts on heavy equipment and rushes into a burning building to fight a fire and save lives. The families of these brave public servants deserve to participate in the PSOB Program if their loved ones die of a heart attack or other cardiac related ailments while selflessly protecting us from harm.

First responders across the country now face a new series of challenges as they respond to millions of emergency calls this year. They do this with an unwavering commitment to the safety of their fellow citizens, and are forever willing to selflessly sacrifice their own lives to protect the lives and property of their fellow citizens. It is time for the Senate to show its support and appreciation for these extraordinarily brave and heroic public safety officers by passing the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that will help raise the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of Americans who live near the U.S.-Mexico Border. The ``Southwest Regional Border Authority Act'' would create an economic development authority for the Southwest border region, charged with awarding grants to border communities in support of their local economic development projects.

The need for a Regional Border Authority is acute: the poverty rate in the Southwest border region is 20 percent--nearly double the national average; unemployment rates in Southwest border counties often reach as high as five times the national unemployment rate; per capita personal income in the region is greatly below the national average; and lack of adequate access to capital has made it difficult for businesses to start up in the region.

In addition, the development of key infrastructures--such as water and wastewater, transportation, public health, and telecommunications-- has not kept pace with the population explosion and the increase in cross-border commerce.

The counties in the Southwest border region are among the most economically distressed in the nation. In fact, there are only a few such regions of economic distress throughout the country--almost all of which are currently served by regional economic development commissions. These commissions, which are authorized by Congress, include the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Denali Commission. In order to address the needs of the border region in a similar fashion, I propose the creation of a regional economic development authority for the Southwest border.

My bill, which is modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission, is based on four guiding principles. First, it starts from the premise that the people who live in the southwest border region know best when it comes to making decisions that affect their communities. Second, it employs a regional approach to economic development and encourages communities to work across county and state lines when appropriate. All too often, past efforts to improve the Southwest border region have hit roadblocks as a result of poor coordination and communication between communities.

Third, it creates an economic development entity that is independent--meaning it will be able to make decisions that are in the best interest of border communities, without being subject to the politics of Federal agencies. Finally, it brings together representatives of the four Southwest border States and the Federal Government as equal partners, all of whom will work to improve the quality of life and standard of living for border residents.

This is not just another commission, and it is certainly not just another grant program. I believe the Southwest Regional Border Authority not only will help leverage new private sector funding, but also will help better target Federal funding to those projects that are most likely to achieve the desired outcome of increased economic development.

The legislation accomplishes this through a sensible mechanism of development planning. Under the bill, communities in each of the four border States will work through ``local development districts'' to create development plans that reflect the needs and priorities specific to each locality. These local development plans then go to the State in which the communities are located, where they become the basis for a State development plan. The four State development plans, in turn, from the basis for a regional development plan, which is put together by the Authority. The purpose of this planning process is to ensure that local priorities are reflected in the projects funded by the Authority, while also

providing flexibility to the Authority to fund projects that are regional in nature.

This process has several advantages. First, by ensuring that Federal dollars are targeted to projects that have gone through thorough planning at the local level, we will greatly improve the probability of success for those projects--thereby increasing the Federal Government's return on its investment. Second, local development plans are essential to attracting private sector funding. Increased private investment means less need for Federal, State, and local public sector funding. Third, combining resources in such a way will help communities get more funding then they can currently get from any one program. This is particularly important now as we in Congress grapple with how to fund the needs of the border in the current budget climate.

I believe there are additional benefits to be derived from the Border Authority. As the only independent, quasi-Federal entity charged with economic development for the entire Southwest border region, the Authority will become a clearinghouse of sorts on all the funding available to the border region. This will enable the Authority to help border communities learn which programs are best suited to their needs and most likely to achieve the goals of their local development plans. Another benefit is its focus on economically distressed counties. Under the bill, the Authority can provide funding to increase the Federal share of a federal grant program to up to 90 percent of the total cost. This is particularly helpful to the many communities that are often unable to utilize federal funding because they can't afford the required local match.

For far too long the needs of the Southwest Border have been ignored, overlooked, or underfunded. I am confident that the creation of a Southwest Regional Border Authority not only will call attention to the great needs that exist along the border, but also provide resources to local communities where the dollars will do the most good. I urge the Senate to move swiftly on this legislation, and I ask my colleagues for their support.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act.'' I am proud to join the senior Senator from Connecticut in reintroducing this legislation.

Senator Dodd and I are interested in making the tribal recognition process a more fair and open process. I am aware of another bill introduced last month by Chairman Campbell that also seeks to reform the Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process. While I am concerned with several aspects of the Senator's bill, I am nonetheless gratified to see that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize that the current BIA process is fraught with problems.

I know that both Chairman Campbell and Vice Chairman Inouye want to reform the broken tribal recognition process at the BIA. I look forward to working together with both Chairman Campbell and Vice Chairman Inouye to craft and pass legislation to fix a process that Vice chairman Inouye last year called a ``scandal.''

I would first like to reiterate my support for the recognition of our historic Indian tribes. Unfortunately, this important recognition process is not operating as it should--in particular, the decisions are murky on the criteria for recognition when, and how, they may be satisfied--and those shortcomings are undermining the legitimacy of the entire process.

The lack of public confidence in the tribal recognition process is of grave concern to me. In my home State of Connecticut, public interest in the recognition process has increased because of the ability of recognized tribes to open large casinos. Senator Dodd and I introduced both of these bills in the 107th Congress in an effort to reinvigorate the process and redeem the BIA program for future generations. Our bill will codify existing recognition criteria and require the BIA to provide notice of pending petitions to various interested groups-- something that will benefit both the tribes and the communities that surround them. The companion bill Senator Dodd and I have introduced today will and provide the resources that stakeholders of limited means require to meaningfully participate in the process. As a whole, our two pieces of legislation move towards a stronger recognition system in which all interested persons are able to participate, and participate meaningfully.

In particular, the ``Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act'' is intended to ensure that recognition criteria are satisfied and all affected parties, including affected towns, have a change to fairly participate in the decision process. It ensures that: affected parties be given proper notice; that relevant evidence from petitioners and interested parties, including neighboring town, is properly considered; that a formal hearing may be requested, with an opportunity for witnesses to be called and with other due process procedures in place; that a transcript of the hearing is kept; that the evidence is sufficient to show that the petitioner meets the seven mandatory criteria in federal regulations; and that a complete and detailed explanation of the final decision and findings of fact are published in the Federal Register.

Having created these new procedures, our second bill is intended to ensure that all stakeholders are able to participate in them. It would provide grants to local governments and needy tribes to allow them to hire genealogists, lawyers, and other professionals necessary to participate in proceedings. Grants would be available to assist eligible parties in BIA proceedings regarding the recognition of a tribe as well as proceedings regarding whether to place land into trust for a tribe. We view these bills as working in tandem: we can't make the recognition process stronger and more transparent without giving participants the appropriate professional resources. Together, these bills insist on systemic reform while investing in ore legitimate results.

I want to stress that these bills do nothing to affect already recognized federal tribes or hinder their economic development plans. Nor do they change existing Federal tribal recognition laws. It is still my hope that tribes could support these reforms, so as to buttress the legitimacy of their recognition rulings.

I again want to express my commitment to working with members from both sides of the aisle to craft a more fair and effective tribal recognition process for the BIA. The tribal recognition process is an important issue not only for Connecticut, but for many States throughout this great Nation of ours. The process, unfortunately, is broken, and we should come together to fix it for the benefit of all involved. I look forward to working with Senators Dodd, Chairman Campbell, and Vice Chairman Inouye on legislation to create a better recognition process.

Mr. President, I have long worked with my colleagues from Arizona and other border states to address issues, from health care to crime, that are associated with illegal immigration. In the 107th Congress, I joined Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, and a bipartisan group of Senators to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, to ensure that the Federal Government reimbursed States for the costs wrongly borne by local communities for the incarceration of undocumented immigrants. That bill was based on the premise that control of illegal immigration is principally the responsibility of the Federal Government.

Last November, that legislation was incorporated into the 21st Century Department of Justice Authorization Act. Despite its enactment, States and local governments continue to disproportionately bear the costs associated with incarcerating illegal immigrants. As undocumented aliens take increasingly desperate measures to cross our border with Mexico, the burden borne by States along the Southwestern border continues to grow.

The Federal Government's attempt to stem illegal immigration in Texas and California has made it increasingly difficult to cross the border in these States. Unfortunately, these actions have created a funnel effect, giving Arizona the dubious distinction of being the location of choice for illegal border crossers. Reports suggest that at least one in three of the illegal border crossers arrest traversing the U.S.- Mexico border are stopped in Arizona. Last year approximately 320 people died in the desert trying to cross the border. Additionally, the number of attacks on National Park Service Officers has increased in recent years. Property crimes are rampant along the border, leaving Arizona with the highest per-capita auto theft rate in the nation. Times have gotten so desperate that vigilante groups have begun to form with the goal of doing the job the Federal Government is failing to do.

The situation along our Southwestern border has reached a crisis. I will continue to support legislative initiatives aimed at addressing the problems that stem from illegal immigration. However, I strongly believe that the Federal Government desperately needs innovative legislation to address the source of this problem through a guest worker program. In the absence of guest worker legislation, we must continue supporting important programs, such as SCAAP, that assist the border States where the Federal Government has failed.

Covering the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants is yet another underfunded Federal mandate thrust upon struggling State governments. Less than two weeks ago, States were struck an enormous blow when the funding for SCAAP was cut in half by the FY 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill signed into law by the President. For my own State of Arizona, this means that rather than the $24 million reimbursement Arizona received in FY 2002--which barely covered one third of the actual cost borne by the State--at best Arizona can hope to receive half that amount. Even more disconcerting are recent suggestions that this program should be cut completely, because it does not fit within the mission of the Department of Justice.

I believe that SCAAP is absolutely necessary for all States, particularly those that line our Nation's Southern border. For that reason, Senator Feinstein and I are today introducing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, and Congressman Kolbe, who has introduced the companion to this bill in the House of Representatives, to correct this problem. The bill we are introducing today will extend the authorization of SCAAP through 2010 and to authorize increased funding levels to ensure that States are not shortchanged and funding for this important program continues to increase.

At a time when most states are experiencing the worst budge shortfalls since the Great Depression, the Federal Government must stop shirking the cost for what is truly a Federal responsibility. It is time for us to step up to the plate and reimburse states and local communities for the costs of our failure to adequately address illegal immigration.