Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2006

Mr. President, one of the issues that has been hovering over this Chamber--and this country, of course--is the NSA program, the President's program to do wiretaps on American citizens if part of the call originated in a foreign country.

First, let me stress that I think most of us in this Chamber, Democrat and Republican--certainly myself--believe the President should be given the tools he needs to fight terror. In this brave new world, the tools are different, and because a rule worked in 1960 or 1980 does not necessarily mean it works in 2005 or 2006 or 2004. We have to be flexible. I think you can be flexible in a way that both protects our security and protects our liberty. In most issues, this does not conflict. My watchword on most of these issues is: Have a debate, have a standard, and have an independent arbiter check that that standard is being met.

That worked, for instance, in wiretaps. Before 1971, it was a mess. J. Edgar Hoover was listening in on whomever he chose. There was a debate on this issue. There was a standard--probable cause--and there is an independent arbiter, a federal judge, who determines whether probable cause is met. And it works. Neither the prosecutors nor the defense bar have any complaints.

We could come to the same exact conclusion in the new world we face, where warrants are needed far more quickly regarding many more people. If you are doing information gathering where you look for patterns, that might be needed. Again, because one way worked in the past doesn't mean it still works, and I think most Members, myself included, want to be flexible. The problem is when the executive branch arrogates this issue to itself and says, We can decide to do whatever we want, either under the constitutional executive power--that is pretty broad--or even under a grant of war powers, a grant to use force which, as most know, I supported back when the President asked for it in 2001.

Now there is a great debate. The President and his supporters say he was allowed to do these wiretaps without changing the law, without congressional approval. Some on the other side say he never should have been allowed to do it. I think that is a small minority. Many others say: Yes, he should be allowed to do it, but there ought to be a congressional debate, a change in the law, and perhaps a standard would be applied.

Right now we are deadlocked on that issue. We are deadlocked because, whether it is the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, this body in general, or the Nation--nobody knows, did the President go outside the ambit of the law about asking for a warrant? Some think yes, and they are pretty sure of that. Some think no, and they are pretty sure of it. They are pretty sure that he couldn't. Many are not sure at all.

I ask you, who is the logical group or person to make that determination? The executive branch generally through our history has had a lean to expand executive power. That is natural.

The legislative branch has had a lean on the other side. That is how the Founding Fathers set up our Government in their wisdom and it seems to have worked very well ever since 1789. To say we should just go along with what the executive branch wants is not going to work. Frankly, even though I am a Senator and believe in protecting the legislative prerogative, if we only did what the legislative branch wanted, that probably wouldn't work, either; and, needless to say, we are divided on this.

The most logical place for this to be settled is in the U.S. Supreme Court. They don't side with executive or legislative power, necessarily. They are authoritative, they are respected, in a sense they are the supreme arbiters, and they could put this question to rest and we could move on.

There is one difficulty. There will be people who will challenge these wiretaps through the normal process and we might get to the Supreme Court in 3 or 4 years. During all that time, the gridlock and deadlock we face on this issue, and the concomitant gridlock and deadlock that occurs in other issues related to this, would be hanging over this body. So I tried to figure out how can we get the Supreme Court to hear this case quickly.

The bill I am introducing right now will do just that. We have consulted some expert authorities and there are two basic problems--one easier, one harder. The easier is to simply expedite the judicial process, to grant expedited review. The minute a case is decided in the district court, it goes right up to the Supreme Court because time is of the essence--and I believe it is here. We have good precedent for this. It was done recently so the Supreme Court could hear on an expedited basis McCain-Feingold, and they came to a conclusion, and elections could be held and we moved forward. That is a typical example of where you would do that.

Our bill does grant such expedited review. But what about standing? How do you quickly get into the district court to do this? And, by the way, I have a feeling very few in this body would want to grant an expedited hearing to someone who might be participating in or accused of terrorism. So you have a dilemma that, while you want expedited review and it would seem logical that the Supreme Court should be the place, the cases that are out there are not the ones that would seem to merit that kind of expedited review--a special case; particularly if someone is accused of terrorism. We in New York know better than anywhere else that is a dastardly act.

What we have done--frankly, in consultation with some leading experts on this--is we have granted standing to a

very narrow class of citizens who actually have refrained from making overseas calls because of a fear that they might be listened to under the NSA program. But these are not people who are accused of terrorism in any way. These are, rather, people who maybe would be--and it is a small class--business people who would regularly call, say, Afghanistan. Maybe they are importing rugs, who knows? But they are afraid to because their calls might be listened in to.

It might be academics, maybe a professor of linguistics who might be doing research into the Pashtun language, and now has refrained from making calls. These are people who have been chilled by the reports that their calls might be listened in to. They are American citizens calling the foreign country and would have standing.

Our bill gives those people standing, gives them a right to go to district court quickly and then with expedited review to the Supreme Court, so we could actually get a decision, very possibly, on whether the President's wiretapping was under the ambit of the law very quickly. It is very authoritative. It might break through the dilemmas we face.

I am introducing this legislation this afternoon and I ask my colleagues to give it careful consideration. It is clearly not partisan legislation. Given the current composition of the Supreme Court and the two new Justices who have just been added, it is hardly a liberal or Democratic court, and it could settle the issue once and for all so our country could achieve some comity on this issue and move on and discuss other issues.

I urge my colleagues and everyone else in this great country of ours to examine this legislation, see if they wish to support this legislation or something close to it, and maybe we can move this kind of bill on the floor quickly so we could get the kind of expedited review that I think many of us would seek from the one body that would have the authority to make such review ultimately, and that is the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bill will be handed to the desk for introduction.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 3:15 p.m., in closed session, for a discussion on training and equipping Iraqi security forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2006, immediately following the first rollcall vote of the day's session, to vote on the nomination of Mr. James S. Simpson, of New York, to be Federal Transit Administrator, Department of Transportation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, to consider H.R. 5252.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nomination of Marc Spitzer, of Arizona, to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2011, vice Nora Mead Brownell, resigned.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on EPA regional inconsistencies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider S. 1321, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005, and an amendment that incorporates S. 832, the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2005. Pending the introduction of a bill, the Chairman also intends to hold a markup of legislation to implement the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., followed by a full committee hearing commencing at 10:30 a.m. Both the executive session and full committee hearing are scheduled to be held in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 10 a.m., to consider the nominations of Mickey D. Barnett, Katherine C. Tobin, and Ellen C. Williams to be Governors, U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Native American Housing Programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Hedge Funds and Independent Analysts: How Independent Are Their Relationships?'' on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Matt Friedrich Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Crime Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; The Honorable Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT.

Panel II: Gary Aguirre, Former Investigator, Securities Exchange Commission, Washington, DC; Marc Kasowitz, Senior Partner, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Alliance for Investment Transparency, New York, NY; Joseph McLaughlin, Partner, Sidley & Austin LLP, Managed Fund Association, New York, NY;

Kim Blickenstaff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Biosite, Inc., San Diego, CA; Owen Lamont, Professor of Finance, Yale School of Management, New Haven, CT; Demetrios Anifantis, Former Employee, Camelback Research Alliance, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ; Howard Schillit, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Center for Financial Research and Analysis [CFRA, LLC], Rockville, MD; Jonathan Boersma, Director, Standards of Practice CFA Centre for Financial Market Integrity, Charlottesville, VA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: (Members of Congress).

Panel II: Kimberly Ann Moore to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit; Bobby E. Shepherd to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1812, to amend the reclamation projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to provide for the conjunctive use of surface and ground water in Juab County, Utah; S. 1965, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project, Washington, to the Yakima-Tieton irrigation district; S. 2129, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 2470, to authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B irrigation district in the State of Idaho; S. 2502, to provide for the modification of an amendatory repayment contract between the Secretary of the Interior and the North Unit Irrigation District, and for other purposes; S. 3404, a bill to preauthorize the MNI Wiconi rural water supply project; H.R. 2383, to predesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Plumbing Plant''; and H.R. 4204, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer ownership of the American River pump station project and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am introducing today which I believe will enhance the experience of the millions of visitors who visit our Nation's Capital every year, and will contribute to the ongoing, deeply rewarding, and profoundly important process of national self-discovery. As we learn more about who we are as Americans, we gain strength from our history and enrich our vision for the future.

In that spirit, together with Senators Martinez, Hatch, Bingaman, Hutchison, and Menendez, I have introduced the National Museum of the American Latino Community Commission Act. The bill will establish a Commission to study the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community. The Commission members, selected by the President and Members of Congress, will be tasked with studying the impact of such a Museum, developing a plan of action and a fundraising plan, and proposing recommendations to make the Museum a reality.

I am pleased to be building on the work of several members of Congress during the 108th Congress, most notably Senator Hatch and Congressman Xavier Becerra.

On May 10, 2005, Congressman Xavier Becerra re-introduced the Commission bill in the House of Representatives with Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen. Since then, 107 Representatives have lent their support to H.R. 2134, and tomorrow, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands in the House Resources Committee will meet to examine the proposal.

Washington, DC is more than the seat of our government; it is the symbolic heart of our country. When American travel to their Capital, they expect the museums, monuments, and national parks they visit to reflect the complete American experience. I celebrate the recent opening of the National Museum of the American Indian and the announcement of the location of the new National Museum of African American History and Culture. I believe we must celebrate the diversity of our Nation and her rich national heritage.

Many assume that Hispanics have just arrived on our country's shores. But these newly arrived Hispanics are only a small segment of a much larger community that has been an integral part of American history since before our country was founded.

Hispanics soldiers fought in the American Revolution alongside General George Washington, our first Commander-in-Chief, and have served in every subsequent military conflict in which the U.S. has fought. During the war that led to our Nation's birth, General Washington's army was successful at Yorktown in part because of support from a diverse army led by Bernardo de Galvez on a southern front against the British, driving them out of the Gulf of Mexico, fighting them on the Mississippi and in Florida.

In the Korean War, 140,000 Hispanic soldiers served. During the Vietnam War, more than 80,000 Hispanics served. While Hispanics comprised only 4.5 percent of the U.S. population at the time, they represented 5.5 percent of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. More recently, 20,000 Hispanics took part in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. And today, more than 10 percent of the United States Armed Forces are Hispanics.

In sum, we will honor the more than 1.1 million Hispanic veterans living in America today, by sharing this long history with all who come to our Nation's Capital.

My own family's story speaks to this truth.

Over 400 years ago, in 1598, my family helped found the oldest city in what is now these United States. They named the city Santa Fe--the City of Holy Faith--because they knew the hand of God would guide them through the struggles of survival in the ages ahead.

For the next four centuries, that faith in their future guided them to overcome extremely painful and challenging times. As humble and poor farmers, the circumstances of their lives forged the priceless and timeless values my father Henry and mother Emma instilled in their eight children.

They were indeed a part of our country's greatest generation. My mother traveled across the country to work in the Pentagon's War Department, and my father was a proud veteran of World War II. In fact, one of his last requests was to be buried in his uniform.

Although neither had a college degree, they taught us about the values and promise of America. All eight of their children became first generation college graduates, inspired by their

dedication to God, family, community and country.

As the National Capital Planning Commission states: ``the memorials and museums that define Washington's Monumental Core express America's connections to its past and its direction for the future. They help us understand what it means to be an American.''

As a proud American, I want to ensure that every individual who visits Washington has a chance to learn the full history of who we are and who we are becoming as Americans. It is my hope that the Senate can work to pass this important bill that will record and preserve our shard American history.

In the coming months, I will work with the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee to advance the Commission bill. I look forward to speaking with my Senate colleagues about the Commission bill, and hope we can take the important step of establishing the Commission.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1812, to amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to provide for the conjunctive use of surface and ground water in Juab County, Utah; S. 1965, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project, Washington, to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District; S. 2129, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 2470, to authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B Irrigation District in the State of Idaho; S. 2502, to provide for the modification of an amendatory repayment contract between the Secretary of the Interior and the North Unit Irrigation District, and for other purposes; S. 3404, to bill to reauthorize the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project; H.R. 2383, to redesignate the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping Plant''; and H.R. 4204, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer ownership of the American River Pump Station Project, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Nate Gentry at 202-224-2179 or Steve Waskiewicz at 202-228-6195.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the Republican leadership's decision to pull this important bipartisan legislation from Floor debate this week. The Voting Rights Act has made a significant difference in ensuring the full inclusion of minorities in the American political process. The legislation pulled today will extend for 25 years key provisions that are set to expire in 2007. While this country has a rich history of valuing the right to vote, it, unfortunately, has a checkered past in ensuring the full access that the Constitution guarantees.

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law 5 months after voting rights protesters were beaten as they walked from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama on what became known as ``Bloody Sunday.'' Earlier this week, I held a forum on the need to extend the Voting Rights Act. I heard personal stories from my colleagues in Congress and members of the civil rights community that illustrate the need to extend this legislation. I commend Congressmen John Conyers, Mel Watt and other members of the Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this bill. I hope that the Republican Leadership can resolve its issues with this landmark legislation and bring it to the House floor as soon as possible.