A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help improve and extend the value of our Nation's highways and bridges. This bill will help ensure that the Federal Government makes better investments of the taxpayer dollars spent on transportation infrastructure. Helping build the roads and bridges of this Nation has been one the best Federal investments our government has made and it is an investment that is worth taking care of to ensure the lasting value, efficiency and safety of our Nation's highways and bridges.

It was during the Thomas Jefferson Administration that the Federal Government developed the concept of a ``Federal-Aid'' Highway. In 1806, Congress authorized federal funding to build the ``National Road.'' Much like the National Highway System of today, the purpose of the National Road was to facilitate interstate commerce between the large commercial centers of the Eastern United States to points west. Construction on the National Road began in 1811 in Cumberland, MD, 200 years, and trillions of dollars, later the United States has one of the world's most expansive highway networks.

The age and expanse of this system underscores the importance of ensuring adequate and consistent investments in our existing transportation infrastructure. The need for performance measures and national state-of-good repair standards are long overdue. Implementing such policies are essential ensuring the quality of the road condition, the economic value of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and the wise investment of taxpayer dollars on transportation infrastructure.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, gave our Nation's highways and bridges a grade of ``D-'' in its 2009 ``Report Card for America's Infrastructure.'' These poor road conditions are costing motorists time, money, and in the worst and most unfortunate situations, costing motorists their lives.

A 2011 transportation infrastructure study produced by TRIP, a non- partisan non-profit transportation research organization sponsored by various transportation stakeholder industries, found that 32 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Poor road conditions take a major toll on the repair and operating costs of motorist's vehicles to the tune of $67 billion a year, or approximately $333 per driver. Poor road conditions contribute to 42 percent of America's urban highways being congested. Traffic congestion costs American motorists more than $78 billion in wasted fuel and lost productivity, and more than 4 billion hours of wasted time that drivers could have otherwise spent with family, earning income or engaged in personal activities. Poor road conditions are a ``significant factor'' in approximately one-third of fatal traffic accidents.

It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that Federal transportation dollars are spent wisely to improve the safety and efficiency of our roads. Making repair and maintenance of our existing infrastructure a priority, during these times of fiscal restraint, is a wise approach to Federal transportation infrastructure. Ignoring maintenance and repair needs on Federal-Aid highways, while advancing capacity expansion projects at the expense of neglected existing infrastructure, exacerbates the decline in the state-of-good repair of our country's roads and bridges and exemplifies irresponsible spending of Federal taxpayer dollars.

ASCE put the cost of the maintenance and repair backlog for roads and bridges at $930 billion. Therefore it is important to understand that this is an infrastructure issue will not be achieved of the course of one surface transportation authorization cycle. However, we can change our Federal policies in such a way that improves how Federal dollars are spent on highway and bridge maintenance so that the taxpayer gets a better return on their transportation taxes.

Breaking the cycle of neglected road and bridge maintenance that stems from allowing a highway facility to decline to into poor or very poor condition in the first place is critical to improving the quality of investment of Federal transportation dollars.

Highway investment figures from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: ``Rough Roads Ahead: Fix It Now or Pay for It Later'' demonstrate that neglecting maintenance and instead waiting for the road surface to reach a condition rating of ``very poor'', on average 16 years, before repairing the road cost nearly twice as much, on average, as compared with making biannual investments to maintain a ``very good'' road condition over that same 16-year period. Not to mention the costs in

damage to vehicles that is caused by the years that a road spends in fair, poor, or very poor condition.

My Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act aims to create a culture of sound transportation investment while providing the States improved resources and flexibility to keep their highway facilities in a state of good repair.

The Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act will establish policies that require the Secretary of Transportation to establish ``state of good repair standards'' for the various classes of Federal-Aid highways to serve as benchmarks of achievement for States to reach.

The act will require States to use an ``Asset Management Process'' to develop ``State System Preservation and Renewal Plans'' and ``State System Preservation and Renewal Performance Targets'' to ensure that their Federal-Aid roads are being kept in a state of good repair.

The act will consolidate the Interstate Maintenance program, Highway Bridge program and half of the National Highway System Federal-Aid highway programs funds together to create a flexible System Preservation and Renewal Program Fund for the States to use as they see fit to meet the goals of their System Preservation and Renewal Plans and Performance Targets.

Both the Federal Government and the States are facing enormous challenges to deliver essential services, like well-maintained, safe and efficient roads, for the country. As with any proposal that calls for a change in the way business is done there needs to be adequate time for transition. My bill, while establishing new standards for maintaining the quality of highways and bridges, also takes special care to grant leeway during emergency circumstances, when essential defense infrastructure investments are needed, and gives consideration to States that have planned to use these newly consolidated funds prior to how these funds would be repurposed under this legislation.

The backlog of maintenance and repair on our existing transportation infrastructure can no longer be ignored. In recent years, our country has experienced a number of tragic incidents that resulted in the loss of life as a direct result of the poor condition of transportation infrastructure. These are preventable incidents that are costly in so many ways. We must make transportation system preservation and renewal a priority because it makes good fiscal sense, good safety sense, and good business sense for our country. My bill does this in a collaborative way between the States and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

I urge my colleagues to support my effort to make improved investments in our existing transportation infrastructure so as to ensure its continued excellence for years to come by co-sponsoring the Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act.

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

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to expand the E-Verify program and enhance our ability to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices. I am pleased that several of my colleagues have joined me in cosponsoring this commonsense bill titled Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act.

Known as the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify currently provides employers with a simple, web-based tool to verify the work eligibility of new hires. In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents.

Unfortunately, since then, identity theft has soared and counterfeit documents have become a thriving industry. Because of this, Congress created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. Employers in this program can electronically verify a new hires employment authorization with more than 455 million Social Security Administration records, more than 122 million Department of State passport records, and more than 80 million Department of Homeland Security immigration records.

This program is voluntary and free for all employers to use. In fact, it is currently used by 269,913 employers representing 903,358 hiring sites. More than 11.3 million queries have been made this year. During fiscal year 2010, more than 98.3 percent of those were verified almost instantly.

Less than 1.7 percent of employees receive a tentative non- confirmation, and must sort out their records with the Social Security Administration. Many times, it is a simple misunderstanding relating from a typo to neglecting to update records after a name change.

With the program set to expire in a little over a year, I see the need to continue its use, without an expiration date. E-Verify is a proven tool in combatting illegal immigration. With the unemployment rate hovering around 9.1 percent, can we afford not to use every instrument available to ensure Americans and legal workers are the ones obtaining employment?

My legislation would make E-Verify a staple in the workplace so that American workers are on a level playing field with cheaper labor. Should an employer refuse to participate, my bill increases the penalties currently used under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on visas. These visas have expiration dates, and it is imperative we do not allow employers to aide in the overstaying of any alien.

A commonsense fix that is also included would require the Social Security Administration to develop algorithm technology that would flag social security numbers that are being used more than once. You would think the Social Security Administration would already have this in place, but sadly they do not. This provision alone will save many from falling victim to identity theft.

For those who do find themselves victim of identity theft, this bill would amend the criminal code to clarify identity fraud is punishable regardless if the defendant did not have knowledge of the victim. This provision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that an individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person. This is a commonsense and long overdue provision. Anyone who has had their identity stolen by an illegal alien would agree. We need to strengthen our laws to deter the robust black market for fraudulent documents.

Another provision in the bill, which I know will benefit many rural areas such as small towns in Iowa, would help those businesses without internet capabilities to participate in E-Verify. Requiring the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to establish a demonstration project in these rural areas will greatly measure the needs of our rural employers and involve the small business community.

Some may want to criticize the database used to check employees, but with continued enhancements, we are making great strides. For instance, just this past March, the Department of Homeland Security initiated the ``Self Check'' program to allow workers in five States and the District of Columbia to self-check employment eligibility. One of my staffers used Self Check and received confirmation of work authorization almost instantly. The entire process took her less than 90 seconds.

Another development is the recent launch to include U.S. passport photo matching capabilities. This further enhances the integrity of the program by enabling E-Verify to automatically check the validity and authenticity of all U.S. passports and passport cards presented for employment verification checks. E-Verify is supported by many. Most notably by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano who has said, ``E-Verify is a smart, simple, and effective tool that allows us to work with employers to help them maintain a legal workforce.'' According to DHS, the ``E- Verify program infrastructure is capable of handling the volume of queries that would be necessary for a nationwide mandatory employment verification system.'' DHS has been preparing for such an occasion, and I'm pleased to put forward my proposal today.

For those who were here during the 2007 immigration debate, you may remember that I, Senator Baucus and then-Senator Obama worked very closely on the issue of employment verification. I have kept many of the principles agreed upon in 2007 and included them in this bill. With that said, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues with any ideas they may have to strengthen this system.

While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about illegal immigration and our struggling job market. People

back home want employers to be held accountable. They want to see our government do more to make sure we are reducing the magnet for people to cross our borders illegally. I hope more colleagues will join me in my effort to achieve accountability through electronic verification.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Consular Notification Compliance Act. This legislation will help bring the United States into compliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, VCCR, and is critical to ensuring the protection of Americans traveling overseas.

Each year, thousands of Americans are arrested and imprisoned when they are in foreign countries studying, working, serving the military, or traveling. From the moment they are detained, their safety and well- being depends, often entirely, on the ability of United States consular officials to meet with them, monitor their treatment, help them obtain legal assistance, and connect them to family back home. That access is protected by the consular notification provisions of the VCCR, but it only functions effectively if every country meets its obligations under the treaty--including the United States.

Unfortunately, in some instances, the United States has not been meeting those obligations. There are currently more than 100 foreign nationals on death row in the United States, most of whom were never told of their right to contact their consulate and their consulate was never notified of their arrest, trial, conviction, or sentence. There are many other foreigners in U.S. prisons awaiting trial for non- capital crimes, some facing life sentences, who were similarly denied consular access. This failure to comply with our treaty obligations undercuts our ability to protect Americans abroad and deeply damages our image as a country that abides by its promises and the rule of law. It would also be completely unacceptable to us if our citizens were treated in this manner.

The Consular Notification Compliance Act seeks to bring the United States one step closer to compliance with the convention. It is not perfect. It focuses only on the most serious cases--those involving the death penalty--but it is a significant step in the right direction and we need to work together to pass it quickly. Texas is poised to execute the next foreign national affected by this failure to comply with the treaty on July 7, 2011. He was not notified of his right to consular assistance, and the Government of Mexico has expressed grave concerns about the case. We do not want this execution to be interpreted as a sign that the United States does not take its treaty obligations seriously. That message puts American lives at risk. The Government of Great Britain has expressed similar concerns about a case involving a British citizen facing the death penalty here, who was denied consular access.

The bill I am introducing would allow foreign nationals who have been convicted and sentenced to death to ask a court to review their cases and determine if the failure to provide consular notification led to an unfair conviction or sentence.

The bill also recognizes that law enforcement and the courts must do a better job in the future to promptly notify individuals of their right to consular assistance so the United States does not find itself in this precarious position again. To that end, the bill reaffirms that the obligations under the treaty are Federal law and apply to all foreign nationals arrested or detained in the United States. For individuals arrested on charges that carry a possible punishment of death, the bill ensures adequate opportunity for consular assistance before a trial begins.

This bill offers very limited remedies to a very limited number of people. I am troubled that it has to be so narrow, as we demand far broader protection for American citizens abroad every day. However, carrying out a death sentence is an irreversible action, and I believe that we must act quickly. I understand that a limited bill has the best chance of achieving the bipartisan support needed to move forward on such an important issue at this time.

Compliance with our consular notification obligations is not a question of partisan interest. There should be unanimous support for this bill. The VCCR was negotiated under President Kennedy, ratified during the Nixon administration, and it has been fully supported by every President since. President George W. Bush understood the critical need to honor our obligations under this treaty. Although he was ultimately unsuccessful, he vigorously worked to bring the United States into compliance, and he supported action along the lines of what I propose today. He understood the implications of non-compliance for our citizens, our businesses, and our military. I have no doubt President Obama shares the same commitment to resolving this issue.

I saw the need to resolve this issue first-hand this spring when a young, innocent Vermont college student was detained by Syrian police simply for taking photos of a demonstration. I worked hard with the U.S. consulate in Syria to obtain access to him. His safety depended on the ability of our consular officers to see him, provide assistance, and monitor his condition.

Similarly, the United States invoked the VCCR to seek access to the three American hikers detained in Iran after accidently crossing an unmarked border in 2009. In 2001, when a U.S. Navy surveillance plane made an emergency landing in Chinese territory, the State Department cited the VCCR in demanding immediate access to the plane's crew.

I doubt there are many Members of Congress who have not sought similar help from our consulates when their constituents have been arrested overseas. We know how critically important this access is, and we expect other governments to provide it. Those governments expect no less of us.

This bill has the support of the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State. I have heard from retired members of the military urging passage of the bill to protect service men and women and their families overseas, and from former diplomats of both political parties who know that compliance with our treaty obligations is critical for America's national security and commercial interests.

Given the long history of bipartisan support for the VCCR, there should be unanimous support for this legislation to uphold our treaty obligations. A failure to act places Americans at risk.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address issues of great concern to me and to all who care about public safety in Alaska Native villages.

Last year President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order bill into law. That legislation passed because Congress recognized the great need to provide more support for the criminal justice system and communities in Indian Country. While this law has some important provisions that will benefit Alaska Native communities, I believe the remoteness and other unique conditions in many Native villages in my State compel us to do more. That is why I am introducing the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2011.

My bill will establish a demonstration project allowing Alaska Native tribes to set up tribal courts, establish tribal ordinances, and impose sanctions on those people who violate the ordinances. It would enhance current tribal

authority, while maintaining the State's primary role and responsibility in criminal matters. Additionally, those communities selected to be part of the demonstration project would be eligible for an Alaska Village Peace Officer grant, enabling a Peace Officer to serve participating communities in a holistic manner.

Due to the vastness of Alaska, too many of our small remote villages lack any law enforcement. Too often, minor cases involving alcohol and domestic abuse go unreported because the nearest State Trooper resides in a distant hub community, located a long and expensive airplane ride away. Frequently, harsh weather prevents the Troopers from flying into a community even when the most heinous acts have occurred. Approximately 71 villages have a sole, unarmed Village Patrol Safety Officer, VPSO, who must be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Compounding the challenges of a small number of local law enforcement, these few hard-working VPSOs are often underpaid. While communities try to provide some housing and heating assistance, in places where fuel oil can cost as much as $10 a gallon, it can be difficult to retain qualified VPSOs and also sustain the funding for these public servants.

As one who believes whole-heartedly in community involvement, I strongly believe tribes in Alaska should benefit from true self- determination and have a role in their law enforcement needs. This local control not only provides security for communities, but also encourages local acceptance of the established or existing judicial system as a whole. With the changes in place that my bill would require, residents of Alaska Native villages will see a culturally- relevant system replacing a crisis-management system that is set in place after a tragedy has occurred.

Unfortunately, Alaska Native communities have grown all too familiar with alarming suicide rates. In the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, over a two- month period during the summer of 2010, there were at least nine self- inflicted deaths in several of the region's villages. Nick Tucker, an elder in the village of Emmonak, wrote a letter to the State of Alaska's rural affairs advisor to try to bring attention to the issue. Part of Mr. Tucker's letter begged for the Governor to call the Legislature into session to address the issue. He also said it is no longer acceptable for village residents to wait for State Troopers because ``in the villages, they take forever.''

Part of the disturbing cycle of suicide in rural Alaska can be attributed to the presence of drugs and alcohol. Despite the knowledge that an individual can speak with an elder and learn who is bootlegging alcohol or selling drugs, predators do not fear law enforcement intervention because there is no consistent police or State Trooper presence.

Further, despite many Alaska Native communities' wealth of cultural heritage and tradition, many suffer from economic, cultural, and educational depression. Villages often experience high unemployment rates, above 20 percent, due to their remoteness and lack of economic opportunity. Most economic development in Alaska is centered in either the metropolitan areas, or in very remote areas where local residents are able to develop local resources. This economic depression, coupled with the 10,000-year practice of subsistence, means Alaska Natives' physical and spiritual survival remains highly dependent on the land. They subsist on game, berries, and fish. However, as hunting and fishing stocks dwindle, many of these Alaskans are feeling disconnected from their heritage and, at times, have turned to drugs and alcohol. Though educational attainment in the last 40 years has increased dramatically, the dropout rate in Alaska still hovers at 40 percent. Too many of our young men and women have lost hope and are losing a sense of community.

We must give our Nation's communities the tools necessary to protect themselves. Too often, we pour resources into urban areas, but decry lack of resources when we try to work toward innovative solutions for our most remote communities. We should no longer allow the answer from anyone to be ``we don't have the resources.'' Alaska Native villages are vibrant, strong communities and we should do everything in our power to answer their calls for help. I am hoping the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act of 2011 will be just one piece of the puzzle.

I encourage my colleagues to join me on this legislation, and ask for the full Senate to consider and pass it--providing much-needed help and resources to some of our country's neediest places.

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

Mr. President, today is Flag Day and it is the perfect day to re-introduce a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to protect the American flag from physical desecration. I am joined in doing so today by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. He was an original cosponsor of this amendment on 6 previous occasions when I have introduced it, including in the 109th Congress when this body came within one vote of approving it.

The American flag is a unique symbol of our country, of its history, and of our shared values. There is, in fact, no more powerful unifying general symbol. At the same time, the flag no doubt means different specific things to different individuals; Congress cannot, and should not attempt to, dictate what Americans believe, think, or say about the flag and whatever it represents to individuals.

That said, Congress should have authority to protect this unique symbol from at least physical desecration. The Supreme Court stripped even that authority from Congress in 1990 when it held that physical desecration is ``speech'' protected by the First Amendment. I believe the Court was wrong in that conclusion, but because the Court claimed to speak for the Constitution, the only way for Congress once again to have authority to protect the flag is by amending the Constitution.

In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington said that the very basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the people, not to the Supreme Court. As a result, the American people must have the opportunity to decide whether their Constitution should allow Congress to protect the flag.

The amendment we introduce today is as simple as it can be. It states: ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' Unfortunately, simplicity does not prevent distortion, either by negligence or intention. Critics and some in the media have led many to believe that this amendment by itself bans flag desecration. It does not. In fact, should Congress propose and the states ratify this amendment, it might not result in any change in the law at all. That would be up to Congress and the people we represent to decide.

The issue is that today Congress is today prohibited by the Supreme Court from passing laws that protect the flag even if 100 percent of the American people wanted those laws and the Congress was ready to enact them.

The American people should be given the opportunity to decide whether they want their Constitution to allow their Congress to pass laws protecting the American flag. That is the way a representative democracy like ours should function. The Supreme Court distorted that process and this amendment will correct the Court's error. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as many of you have done in the past, to support this amendment and to give this decision back to the American people.