Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Senators Domenici, Boxer, and Feinstein concerning a provision in H.R. 233, the Northern California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. Although I strongly supported the Senate companion measure, S. 128, which passed the Senate last year, I am concerned with some of the changes made by bill as passed by the House of Representatives. Of particular concern is section 10, dealing with commercial fishing permits in Redwood National and State Parks in California. The section directs the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for authorized vehicle access for commercial surf fishing at designated beaches within both the National and State Parks. The section provides that the number of permits

shall be limited to the number of valid permits that are held on the date of enactment of this Act, and that the permits ``so issued shall be perpetual and subject to the same conditions as the permits held on the date of enactment of this Act.''

I understand from the National Park Service and the bill sponsors that presently 15 permits are issued for commercial surf fishing within the park. I was concerned that the language stating that the permits shall be perpetual might be construed as creating a right vesting in the permit holder, which would be contrary to the way permits are issued throughout the National Park System. However, I understand that the intent of this language is simply to ensure that the National Park Service not reduce the number of permits issued below the current level of valid permits, assuming there is sufficient demand for the remaining permits. Furthermore, I understand that there is no intent for the requirements of section 10 to be construed as an implied waiver of applicable laws, including the National Park Service Organic Act and the Endangered Species Act, but rather a directive to the Park Service to discontinue its plan to completely phase out these permits. I would like to ask Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Senators Boxer and Feinstein, the Senate sponsors, whether they agree with me that it is their intent that the language in section 10 does not create a property right and whether they also agree that the sole purpose of the language is to limit the number of permits to the number of valid permits in existence as of the date of enactment of H.R. 233.

The language in section 10 requires the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits allowing for authorized vehicle access to designated beaches, including Gold Bluff Beach, within Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, which is located within the broader national park boundary. This provision is unusual in that, on its face, it appears to require the Secretary to authorize access to a beach that is within a State Park and managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. However, I understand that nothing in this section is intended to override the responsibilities of the State of California and its management of state park. Is that the understanding of the chairman and bill sponsors as well?

I thank my colleagues for helping to clarify this issue. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Congressman Thompson, the sponsor of H.R. 233, be printed in the Record. His letter indicates his agreement with our colloquy. Based on the common understanding of the purpose and intent of section 10, I will support passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed the first 5 minutes and Senator Salazar from Colorado take the second 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act, and to express my disappointment that the majority leader has decided to prevent Senators from offering relevant amendments. I have an amendment, which is germane postcloture, which simply provides the

Department of Homeland Security with discretion regarding the use and placement of fencing along our border.

As a Senator who represents a border State, I understand the frustration communities are facing due to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. Illegal immigration is a serious problem and we do need to do a better job of addressing this issue.

The Senate has passed a comprehensive immigration bill aimed at improving security along our borders and at reforming our immigration laws. Although this bill isn't perfect, it is a step in the right direction. I was very disappointed that the leadership in the House refused to appoint conferees, and instead decided to hold hearings around the country to stir up discontent rather than to seek solutions.

The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill. The House has passed a bill. We should have convened a conference committee and tried to work out the differences between these bills. The failure to at least make a good-faith effort at coming to an agreement is unacceptable.

With regard to the specifics of the Secure Fence Act, I do believe that there are locations along our border where fencing makes sense. For example, I support the $1.2 billion that is in the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fencing, infrastructure, and technology, and I voted to provide $1.8 billion for the Army National Guard to build fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border as part of the Defense Appropriations bill. In addition, over the last several years I have secured millions of dollars of funding for fencing and vehicle barriers specifically for New Mexico.

However, we need to be smart about security. Walls may make good sound bites in political ads, but the reality is that the individuals charged with securing our borders have consistently stated that they are only part of the solution and that there are better and more cost- effective ways to provide for border security.

As Ralph Basham, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, stated earlier this year in a response to a question about the proposal to build 700 miles of double-layered fencing: ``It doesn't make sense, it's not practical.'' He went on to say that what we need is an appropriate mix of technology, infrastructure, and personnel.

Secretary Chertoff has voiced similar concerns, and has consistently maintained that securing our borders will require a much more comprehensive approach than simply building fences.

Unfortunately, the bill, as currently drafted, does not provide the Department of Homeland Security with the discretion they need to determine the most appropriate means to secure the border. It ties their hands with regard to the use and placement of fencing.

Under current law, the Department of Homeland Security already has the legal authority to build the fences that it needs, and I do not think we should be mandating over 700 miles of fencing in specific locations at a cost of millions of dollars per mile unless we know that this is something that DHS believes it is the best way to enhance security.

This bill micromanages and mandates specifically where DHS must build fencing. For example, with regard to New Mexico, the bill states that a fence must be built ``extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, NM, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, TX.'' There hasn't been any local input regarding this specific location and I haven't received any indication from DHS that they believe that this is the best place to build a fence.

To the contrary, in discussions during one of the southwest New Mexico Border Security Task Force meetings, the point was raised by local security officials that the location of the proposed double- layered fencing in the bill is in the wrong place.

The bill also mandates fencing in some areas where we just spent millions of dollars per mile to build vehicle barriers. According to DHS, it costs approximately $4.4 million for a single layer of fencing per mile. The bill we are debating today mandates double-layer fencing, which adds up to about $6.6 billion for the 730 miles of fencing required under the bill. If we are going to spend billions of dollars to place a fence along over one-third of our southern border, we should at least ensure that it is in the right location and that DHS can make necessary adjustments in the interest of securing our borders.

To this end, I hoped to offer an amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the ability to modify the placement and use of the fencing mandated under this bill, if the Secretary determines that such use or placement of the fencing is not the best way to achieve and maintain operational control over the border. I strongly believe that this is a reasonable amendment that ensures that DHS has the flexibility it needs to alter this proposal if it doesn't advance our overall security strategy.

Let me be clear, I believe we should do what it takes to secure our borders. I have consistently worked to secure increased funding for vehicle barriers, surveillance equipment, and additional Border Patrol agents. But I also believe we should do it in the most effective way, both from a security standpoint and in terms of costs.

I also intended to offer an amendment that would have provided border law enforcement agencies with much needed relief in addressing border- related criminal activities. Specifically, the amendment would have authorized $50 million a year in funding to help departments purchase new equipment and hire additional officers. This legislation has wide bipartisan support and has passed the Senate on two occasions. However, most recently, the majority party removed this bill from the 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. If the majority party wants to address security issues, I stand ready to do so. Unfortunately, it appears that they are more concerned with political grandstanding than crafting substantive border security policies.

I strongly believe that Senators should have an opportunity to offer amendments and improve the bill. Regrettably, the majority leader has used technical procedural rules to prevent Senators from doing so. I cannot vote for this legislation without being afforded the opportunity to offer my amendments and fix this flawed bill.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer this amendment prior to final passage on this bill.

Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I think it is unfortunate that we cannot make a commonsense change in this bill to make this a workable piece of legislation. It could pass this Senate with 100 votes if, in fact, this amendment were adopted--at least as far as I am concerned it likely would. The fear that the purpose of this bill is to get a bill to the President that has the word ``fence'' in the title so that the people can go out and campaign on it in the next 4 or 6 weeks, that is not good government. That is not a good result, policywise, for this country. I, unfortunately, will be compelled to vote against the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be co-sponsoring a bill which Senator Domenici and I are introducing today, that would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to help communities in eastern New Mexico develop the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System (ENMRWS). The water supply and long-term security to be made available by this project is absolutely critical to the region's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to help make this project a reality.

This bill is very similar to a bill I introduced in June 2004 which was the subject of a hearing before the Water & Power Subcommittee of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee. At that hearing, the Bureau of Reclamation raised a number of issues that needed to be addressed by the Project sponsors prior to securing Reclamation's support. I'm happy to say that the sponsors have worked diligently to address those issues, and it is time, once again, to move this project towards authorization. I realize that there is little time left in the 109th Congress. Nonetheless, introduction of this bill now is important to ensure an ongoing dialogue with the Bureau of Reclamation and maintain progress as we head towards the 110th Congress.

The source of water for the ENMRWS is Ute Reservoir, a facility constructed by the State of New Mexico in the early 1960s. In 1966, Congress authorized Reclamation to study the feasibility of a project that would utilize Ute Reservoir to supply water to communities in eastern New Mexico (P.L. 89-561). Numerous studies were subsequently completed, but it was not until the late 1990s that several communities, concerned about their reliance on declining and degraded groundwater supplies in the area, began to plan seriously for the development of a regional water system that would make use of the renewable supply available from Ute Reservoir.

As part of that process, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority was formed to carry out the development of the ENMRWS. The Authority consists of 6 communities and 2 counties in eastern New Mexico, and has been very effective in securing local funds and State funding to support the studies and planning necessary to move the project forward. To date, the State of New Mexico has provided over $4 million to help develop the ENMRWS.

This is a very important bill to the citizens of New Mexico. It has the broad support of the communities in the region as well as financial support from the State of New Mexico. There is no question that completion of the ENMRWS will provide communities in Curry and Roosevelt counties with a long-term renewable source of water that is needed to sustain current economic activity and support future growth and development in the region. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, thereby helping to address pressing water needs in the rural West.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be co-sponsoring a bill which Senator Domenici and I are introducing today, that would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to help communities in eastern New Mexico develop the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System (ENMRWS). The water supply and long-term security to be made available by this project is absolutely critical to the region's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to help make this project a reality.

This bill is very similar to a bill I introduced in June 2004 which was the subject of a hearing before the Water & Power Subcommittee of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee. At that hearing, the Bureau of Reclamation raised a number of issues that needed to be addressed by the Project sponsors prior to securing Reclamation's support. I'm happy to say that the sponsors have worked diligently to address those issues, and it is time, once again, to move this project towards authorization. I realize that there is little time left in the 109th Congress. Nonetheless, introduction of this bill now is important to ensure an ongoing dialogue with the Bureau of Reclamation and maintain progress as we head towards the 110th Congress.

The source of water for the ENMRWS is Ute Reservoir, a facility constructed by the State of New Mexico in the early 1960s. In 1966, Congress authorized Reclamation to study the feasibility of a project that would utilize Ute Reservoir to supply water to communities in eastern New Mexico (P.L. 89-561). Numerous studies were subsequently completed, but it was not until the late 1990s that several communities, concerned about their reliance on declining and degraded groundwater supplies in the area, began to plan seriously for the development of a regional water system that would make use of the renewable supply available from Ute Reservoir.

As part of that process, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority was formed to carry out the development of the ENMRWS. The Authority consists of 6 communities and 2 counties in eastern New Mexico, and has been very effective in securing local funds and State funding to support the studies and planning necessary to move the project forward. To date, the State of New Mexico has provided over $4 million to help develop the ENMRWS.

This is a very important bill to the citizens of New Mexico. It has the broad support of the communities in the region as well as financial support from the State of New Mexico. There is no question that completion of the ENMRWS will provide communities in Curry and Roosevelt counties with a long-term renewable source of water that is needed to sustain current economic activity and support future growth and development in the region. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, thereby helping to address pressing water needs in the rural West.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today, entitled the ``Community Health Workers Act of 2006,'' would improve access to health education and outreach services to women in medically underserved areas, including the U.S. border region along New Mexico.

Lack of access to adequate health care and health education is a significant problem on the southern New Mexico border. While the access problem is in part due to a lack of insurance, it is also attributable to non-financial barriers to access. These barriers include a shortage of physicians and other health professionals, and hospitals; inadequate transportation; a shortage of bilingual health information and health providers; and culturally insensitive systems of care.

This legislation would help to address the issue of access by providing $15 million per year for a three year period in grants to State, local, and tribal organizations, including community health centers and public health departments, for the purpose of hiring community health workers to provide health education, outreach, and referrals to women and families who otherwise would have little or no contact with health care services.

Recognizing factors such as poverty and language and cultural differences that often serve as barriers to health care access in medically underserved populations, community health workers are in a unique position to improve health outcomes and quality of care for groups that have traditionally lacked access to adequate services. They often serve as ``community specialists'' and are members of the communities in which they work. As such they can effectively serve hard-to-reach populations.

A shining example of how community health workers serve their communities, a group of so-called ``promotoras'' in Dona Ana County were quickly mobilized during a recent flood emergency in rural New Mexico. These community health workers assisted in the disaster recovery efforts by partnering with FEMA to find, inform and register flood victims for Federal disaster assistance. Their personal networks and knowledge of the local culture, language, needs, assets, and barriers greatly enhanced FEMA's community outreach efforts. The promotoras of Dona Ana County demonstrate the important role community health workers could play in communities across the nation, including increasing the effectiveness of new initiatives in homeland security and emergency preparedness, and in implementing risk communication strategies.

The positive benefits of the community health worker model also have been documented in research studies. Research has shown that community health workers have been effective in increasing the utilization of health preventive services such as cancer screenings and medical follow up for elevated blood pressure and improving enrollment in publicly funded health insurance programs. In the case of uninsured children, a study by Dr. Glenn Flores, ``Community-Based Case Management in Insuring Uninsured Latino Children,'' published in the December

2005 issue of Pediatrics found that uninsured children who received community-based case management were eight times more likely to obtain health insurance coverage than other children involved in the study because case workers were employed to address typical barriers to access, including insufficient knowledge about application processes and eligibility criteria, language barriers and family mobility issues, among others. This study confirms that community health workers could be highly effective in reducing the numbers of uninsured children, especially those who are at greatest risk for being uninsured. Preliminary investigation of a community health workers project in New Mexico similarly suggests that community health workers could be useful in improving enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP.

According to a 2003 Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare,'' community health workers offer promise as a community- based resource to increase racial and ethnic minorities' access to health care and to serve as a liaison between healthcare providers and the communities they serve.''

Although the community health worker model is valued in the New Mexico border region as well as other parts of the country that encounter challenges of meeting the health care needs of medically underserved populations, these programs often have difficulty securing adequate financial resources to maintain and expand upon their services. As a result, many of these programs are significantly limited in their ability to meet the ongoing and emerging health demands of their communities.

The IOM report also noted that ``programs to support the use of community health workers . . . especially among medically underserved and racial and ethnic minority populations, should be expanded, evaluated, and replicated.''

I am introducing this legislation to increase resources for a model that has shown significant promise for increasing access to quality health care and health education for families in medically underserved communities.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Dr. Flores' study on community-based case management be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding me time and I also thank him for bringing forth this amendment.

I strongly support his proposal, essentially, to take the legislation, the agreement that was worked out in the Armed Services Committee by our colleagues, and to substitute that for what is now before us.

This overall military commissions bill has three general areas of focus: first, the rules pertaining to the interrogation of prisoners; second, the procedures we should have in place for the trial of individuals who are brought before military commissions; and, third, the rights of those prisoners who under this bill will continue to be held without being charged at Guantanamo or elsewhere in the world, or even in this country.

Let me take a moment to briefly comment on these first two issues before I discuss the third issue, which I believe has not received the attention that it deserves.

With regard to interrogation techniques, I have been deeply troubled by the administration's insistence on weakening the prohibition on the use of torture and cruel and inhumane treatment. I strongly believe that we can give our military and intelligence officers the tools they need to protect the American public without abandoning our basic decency. The use of torture and other abusive techniques are not only morally repugnant, but they are ineffective and do great damage to our Nation's credibility with respect to our commitment to human rights. They also put our soldiers at risk of being subjected to similar treatment.

Rather than redefining the Geneva Conventions to permit harsh interrogation techniques by the CIA, as the administration had proposed, the Republican compromise legislation retroactively revises the War Crimes Act so that criminal liability does not result from techniques that the United States may have employed, such as simulated drowning, exposure to hypothermia, and prolonged sleep deprivation.

Under the Detainee Treatment Act, which we passed last year to reaffirm the prohibition on torture, the military is clearly prohibited from engaging in torture or cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment, as specified in the recently issued Army Field Manual. However, under the bill we are debating today, the CIA would be allowed to continue to subject detainees to harsh interrogation techniques without fear of criminal liability. As the President has stated, the ``program'' can continue.

In essence, the legislation defines prisoner abuse and criminal liability in such a way that the administration is able to argue that it is complying with international and domestic legal restraints while at the same time continue to use techniques that amount to abuse under international treaty obligations.

There is also a fundamental lack of clarity with respect to what conduct this legislation forbids. For example, when asked if water- boarding is permitted under this bill, Senator McCain has said that it would not be allowed. But if one asks the administration, it will only say CIA interrogation techniques are classified and that the bill allows the CIA to continue to use so-called alternative interrogation techniques--techniques which our military is prohibited from employing.

I think there is little doubt that these disturbing practices continue. This type of legal ambiguity has not served us well with respect to the treatment of detainees, and we should be taking this opportunity to provide greater legal clarity, not further muddying the water.

I am also concerned about the rules and procedures of the newly constituted military commissions. The bill permits statements allegedly derived through coercive means to be used if the statements are probative and were obtained prior to December 2005, which coincides with the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act. Statements obtained after the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act cannot be admitted as evidence if they have been derived through interrogation techniques that amount to cruel, unusual, or inhumane treatment as prohibited by the fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Essentially we are saying that you can't admit statements derived from coercive methods except for those statements derived when we were using coercive methods. Having these two different standards may be beneficial from the prosecution's perspective in terms of increasing the likelihood that statements will be found admissible, but it is not exactly the clarity we should have with regard to standards of justice.

There are also a variety of problems regarding the rules on hearsay, the appeals process, the definition and retroactive application of crimes, and the admission of secret evidence, among others. Overall, the rules and procedures contained in the proposed legislation fall short of the basic fairness required in any criminal trial.

I wish to talk about the provisions that relate to habeas corpus. One of the most disturbing provisions in the underlying legislation pertains to the disposition of those prisoners who will never be charged before a military commission or any court but who, instead, will be held indefinitely--or at least that option exists for our executive and our military to hold those individuals indefinitely in confinement.

The current bill endorses the administration's practice of designating people, including U.S. citizens, I would point out, as ``enemy combatants.'' It eliminates the ability of aliens--non-U.S. citizens--to bring habeas claims or other claims related to their detention or their treatment or their conditions of confinement.

Whereas the previous attempt to strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction over these individuals under the Detainee Treatment Act applied only to individuals held by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo, this current legislation applies to any alien who is detained by the United States anywhere in the world, including those who are held within the United States. The current language also makes it clear that the elimination of judicial review is retroactive. It applies to all cases involving the detention of individuals since September 11, 2001.

Various of my colleagues have already talked about the right of habeas corpus and its importance in our system of justice. Simply stated, the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge the legal basis for their detention.

Habeas, which is also known as the Great Writ, is one of the most fundamental protections against arbitrary

governmental power. This right dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215, and is enshrined in Article I, section 9, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Filing a habeas petition doesn't entitle a person to a full-blown trial, but it does provide a means to ask whether the person's confinement is in compliance with the law. It doesn't confer any additional constitutional rights; it simply allows a person to ask whether their depravition of liberty is consistent with the Constitution.

One of the principal arguments proponents for removing this protection have put forward in the past was that maintaining habeas rights leads to unnecessary and frivolous litigation. The fact is that these arguments misconstrue the nature of habeas petitions. The reality is, in my view, that court-stripping provisions will not, in fact, lead to less litigation. For example, if this measure is passed, the courts will be forced to consider whether this provision amounts to a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. If it is determined that it does suspend the writ of habeas corpus, the courts will determine whether the suspension clause of the Constitution has been satisfied. Our Constitution is very clear. It says Congress is afforded the authority to suspend habeas in cases of rebellion and invasion. At a time when our courts are open and functioning, I think a person would be hard-pressed to argue that public safety requires removing judicial review. One would be hard-pressed to argue that we are in a period of rebellion, or that we have suffered an invasion, as that phrase was intended by our Founding Fathers.

The one other issue, of course, that I think is important is that the Constitution gives Congress the power to suspend the writ. Here we are not just suspending the writ; this proposal is to abolish the writ, to permanently eliminate this right, this protection for this group of individuals. In my view, it makes more sense to simply allow the courts to hear the cases that are pending in the courts and determine the legality of the detention that is occurring. It makes more sense to do that than it does to litigate over whether those individuals who are incarcerated, in fact, have a right to have their cases heard.

If what the administration says is true and the indefinite imprisonment of individuals at Guantanamo or elsewhere is legal, then why does the administration continue to fight so hard to eliminate the ability of the courts to hear those cases? If these individuals are in fact ``the worst of the worst,'' which we have been assured, then why is it so difficult to provide some factual basis for continuing to detain them?

The likelihood is that some, and maybe many, of these prisoners have very little to do with terrorism. According to a 2002 CIA report, most of the Guantanamo prisoners ``did not belong there.'' According to a Wall Street Journal article earlier this year, an estimated 70 percent of the individuals held at Guantanamo were wrongfully imprisoned. BG Jay Hood, the former commander at Guantanamo, was quoted as saying, ``Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks.''

I don't believe that all of those being held at Guantanamo are innocent. Clearly, they are not. Those who are a threat need to be held accountable for their actions, need to be tried before properly constituted military commissions or criminal courts. Those who are not a threat need to be released and returned to their country of origin. The point is that judicial review allows us to sort the good from the bad and focus our efforts on those who in fact do pose a threat to our country.

It is during times like these that our Founding Fathers envisioned habeas corpus rights needed to be preserved. If judicial review is not required as a matter of law, it makes sense from a policy standpoint to preserve these essential rights in the law. Having a court determine whether a person's detention by the executive branch is consistent with our Constitution and laws does not inhibit this Nation's ability to fight terrorism. To the contrary, ensuring that we are holding the right people not only allows us to focus on those who truly pose a threat, it also will help to reduce criticism in the world community that the United States is not complying with its own laws and Constitution.

In a letter I received from over 30 former diplomats, they stated:

To proclaim democratic government to the rest of the world

as the supreme form of government at the very time that we

eliminate the most important avenue of relief from arbitrary

governmental detention will not serve our interest in the

larger world.

I agree with that statement.

It is also important to note that should the current habeas language be removed from the bill, Guantanamo prisoners would still be prohibited from bringing habeas claims in the future under current law. In the Rasul decision, the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas claims of Guantanamo prisoners. Congress subsequently passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which contained the Graham-Levin compromise language regarding the elimination of habeas. Graham argued that the language was retroactive and barred all pending cases, and Levin argued that the language only eliminated cases initiated after the enactment of the act.

In assessing whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the Hamdan case, the Court found that because congressional intent was unclear it would be inappropriate to view the statute as retroactive. As such, if the status quo is maintained, we would still have language on the books that prohibits any future habeas claims from being filed on behalf of Guantanamo prisoners. Although I disagree with the law as it currently stands, Senators should know that if the language in the existing bill is removed, this Congress has already drastically limited judicial review.

It is important to look at the big picture. As general matter, this bill puts in place procedures to try suspected terrorist by military commissions whereby the only ones who will have an opportunity to prove their innocence will be the high-level prisoners. The suspected low- level prisoners will continue to linger in indefinite imprisonment without charges. Before the previous military commissions were found unconstitutional, the administration charged approximately 10 detainees with crimes. None were ever tried. The President has indicated that he now intends to charge the 14 CIA prisoners, or at least some of them, under the newly constituted military commissions.

Therefore, the reality is that of the approximately 450 prisoners now at Guantanamo only about 25 will likely receive trials. Under the compromise legislation, the remaining prisoners, many of whom have been imprisoned for more than 4 years, will not be held accountable nor will they be able to prove their innocence--instead, they will be denied the right to challenge the legality of their continued confinement.

As Rear Admiral John Hutson, Rear Admiral Guter, and Brigadier General Brahms, pointed out in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the effect of this legislation would be to give greater protections to the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed than to the vast majority of the Guantanamo detainees, who claim that they have nothing to do with al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Most troubling of all, with this legislation Congress is giving its consent to the executive branch to continue to unilaterally designate individuals as enemy combatants and imprison them indefinitely. We are saying that the President can pick up whoever he wants, designate them an enemy combatant and hold them without substantive judicial review.

I know that many of my colleagues have worked to ensure that the military commission procedures comply with our international legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions and that our Nation's soldiers are not put at risk by diminished standards. I support these efforts, and believe that the trial of these suspected terrorists is long overdue. However, passing this flawed bill is not the solution.

Mr. President, this debate is about who we are as a people and whether we are going to continue to adhere to the rule of law and basic human rights. It

is about our fundamental values as a people. The U.S. Constitution was crafted by men who were keenly aware of the potential abuse that could result from providing the executive branch with unrestrained powers with respect to individuals' liberties. The Constitution was crafted to be relevant in the good times, as well as in the times when our Nation faces domestic or foreign threats.

It deeply concerns me that with this bill we are sanctioning the indefinite imprisonment of people without charges. This is wrong. Should this legislation pass as currently drafted, history will not look kindly on this mistaken endeavor.

Frankly, the notion that Congress is willing to provide the President with the authority to indefinitely imprison people without ever having to charge them is quite astonishing. What is more amazing is that the Senate appears prepared to do so after one brief hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue and with little substantive debate on the Senate floor.

We must also remember that in establishing these military commissions we are not solving the Guantanamo problem. This legislation will result in a flurry of legal challenges. The administration's handling of detainee issues has brought us Guantanamo, Abu Griab, and a series of Supreme Court decisions rejecting the administration's legal positions. Let us not complicate the problem by enacting the provisions.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

September 12, 2006.

Senator John Warner,

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Senator Carl Levin,

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

We find it necessary yet again to communicate with you

about issues arising out of our policies concerning detainees

held at Guantanamo Bay. It would appear that each time the

U.S. Supreme Court speaks, efforts are taken to reverse by

legislation the decision of the Court. We refer, of course,

to the Supreme Court's Rasul and Hamdan decisions and to the

provision in the Administration's proposed Military

Commissions Act of 2006 that would strip the federal courts

of jurisdiction over even the pending habeas cases that have

been brought by the detainees at Guantanamo to challenge the

basis for their detention. We urge you to reject any such

habeas-stripping provision.

As we have argued and agreed since 9/11, it is necessary

for Congress to enact legislation to create military

commissions that recognize both the basic notions of due

process and the need for specialized rules and procedures to

deal with the new paradigm we call the war on terror. This

effort must cover those already charged with violating the

laws of war and those newly transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

But the military commissions we are now fashioning will

have no application to the vast majority of the detainees who

have never been charged, and most likely never will be

charged. These detainees will not go before any commissions,

but will continue to be held as ``enemy combatants.'' It is

critical to these detainees, who have not been charged with

any crime, that Congress not strip the courts of jurisdiction

to hear their pending habeas cases. The habeas cases are the

only avenue open for them to challenge the bases for their

detention--potentially life imprisonment--as ``enemy

combatants.''

We strongly agree with those who have argued that we must

arrive at a position worthy of American values, i.e., that we

will not allow military commissions to rely on secret

evidence, hearsay, and evidence obtained by torture. But it

would be utterly inconsistent, and unworthy of American

values, to include language in the draft bill that would, at

the same time, strip the courts of habeas jurisdiction and

allow detainees to be held, potentially for life, based on

CSRT determinations that relied on just such evidence. The

effect would be to give greater protections to the likes of

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed than to the vast majority of the

Guantanamo detainees, who claim that they had nothing to do

with al Qaeda or the Taliban.

We are on a course that should have been plotted and

navigated years ago, and we might be close to consensus. We

ask that, in the closing moments of your consideration of

this vital bill, you restore the faith of those who long have

been a voice for simple commitment to our longstanding basic

principles, to our integrity as a nation, and to the rule of

law. We urge you to oppose any further erosion of the proper

authority of our courts and to reject any provision that

would strip the courts of habeas jurisdiction.

As Alexander Hamilton and James Madison emphasized in the

Federalist Papers, the writ of habeas corpus embodies

principles fundamental to our nation. It is the essence of

the rule of law, ensuring that neither king nor executive may

deprive a person of liberty without some independent review

to ensure that the detention has a reasonable basis in law

and fact. That right must be preserved. Fair hearings do not

jeopardize our security. They are what our country stands

for.

Sincerely,

John D. Hutson,

Rear Admiral, JAGC, USN (Ret.).

Donald J. Guter,

Rear Admiral, JAGC, USN (Ret.).

David M. Brahms,

Brigadier General, USMC (Ret.).

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Kerry, to introduce this important legislation that will ensure that more working Americans have a retirement account. This legislation is the result of the collaborative work done by David John of the Heritage Foundation and Mark Iwry of the Retirement Security Project to provide a simple, cost-effective way to increase retirement security for our Nation's workers who currently do not have a retirement plan. The Automatic IRA Act of 2006 will require employers who do not currently sponsor a retirement plan to offer their workers the opportunity to have part of their paycheck to be sent directly to an IRA. This will not only help millions of Americans begin saving for their retirement but will also provide subtle encouragement to employers to sponsor a qualified retirement account such as a SIMPLE or a 401(k).

In 2004, it was estimated that as many as 71 million Americans work for an employer who does not offer them any kind of retirement plan-- almost half of all of our country's workers. Without an employer- sponsored retirement plan, many of these workers will not be saving adequately for their retirement. The first steps to addressing this growing inequity are to ensure that all workers have easy access to a retirement account and the ability to have part of their wages go directly from their paycheck into this account. Both of these features have been proven to encourage retirement savings and are imperative if we are going to address our national retirement savings rate.

Under this legislation, all employers with more than 10 employees who do

not sponsor a qualified retirement or pension plan must offer its employees the ability to have wages remitted directly to an automatic IRA through payroll deduction. These employers will not be required to make any contributions to these accounts and will receive a tax credit to offset the administrative costs of remitting part of the employee's wages to the IRA. It is entirely up to the employer as to what IRA options the employees would have. For instance, the employer could decide to remit the funds to the IRA of the employee's choice or the employer could decide to remit the money to the financial institution of his or her choice. The employer will also have a new option--the ability to remit the money to a new, simplified type of IRA, the automatic IRA. A board, similar to the Federal Government's existing Thrift Savings Plan Board, would create standards for these new accounts that must be followed by participating financial service companies. This board will also be responsible for educating the public about the importance of having a qualified retirement account as part of their duties.

Mr. President, it is going to take a bipartisan approach to address our Nation's retirement savings problems. I again want to applaud the efforts made by Mr. John of the Heritage Foundation and Mr. Iwry from the Retirement Security Project in advancing this proposal. It is now up to all of us in this Chamber to follow their example and pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Kerry, to introduce this important legislation that will ensure that more working Americans have a retirement account. This legislation is the result of the collaborative work done by David John of the Heritage Foundation and Mark Iwry of the Retirement Security Project to provide a simple, cost-effective way to increase retirement security for our Nation's workers who currently do not have a retirement plan. The Automatic IRA Act of 2006 will require employers who do not currently sponsor a retirement plan to offer their workers the opportunity to have part of their paycheck to be sent directly to an IRA. This will not only help millions of Americans begin saving for their retirement but will also provide subtle encouragement to employers to sponsor a qualified retirement account such as a SIMPLE or a 401(k).

In 2004, it was estimated that as many as 71 million Americans work for an employer who does not offer them any kind of retirement plan-- almost half of all of our country's workers. Without an employer- sponsored retirement plan, many of these workers will not be saving adequately for their retirement. The first steps to addressing this growing inequity are to ensure that all workers have easy access to a retirement account and the ability to have part of their wages go directly from their paycheck into this account. Both of these features have been proven to encourage retirement savings and are imperative if we are going to address our national retirement savings rate.

Under this legislation, all employers with more than 10 employees who do

not sponsor a qualified retirement or pension plan must offer its employees the ability to have wages remitted directly to an automatic IRA through payroll deduction. These employers will not be required to make any contributions to these accounts and will receive a tax credit to offset the administrative costs of remitting part of the employee's wages to the IRA. It is entirely up to the employer as to what IRA options the employees would have. For instance, the employer could decide to remit the funds to the IRA of the employee's choice or the employer could decide to remit the money to the financial institution of his or her choice. The employer will also have a new option--the ability to remit the money to a new, simplified type of IRA, the automatic IRA. A board, similar to the Federal Government's existing Thrift Savings Plan Board, would create standards for these new accounts that must be followed by participating financial service companies. This board will also be responsible for educating the public about the importance of having a qualified retirement account as part of their duties.

Mr. President, it is going to take a bipartisan approach to address our Nation's retirement savings problems. I again want to applaud the efforts made by Mr. John of the Heritage Foundation and Mr. Iwry from the Retirement Security Project in advancing this proposal. It is now up to all of us in this Chamber to follow their example and pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I want to speak on three issues this morning. First, I will talk about two amendments I have filed to the Secure Fence Act which is the legislation the Senate is debating once we get through morning business. I will talk about the merits of those amendments and the reasons I believe Senators should support those amendments, that we should be allowed an opportunity to offer those amendments. There is some question as to whether we will be allowed that opportunity. After that, I will say a few words about health care and health care issues in this 109th Congress.

First, as to the Secure Fence Act, H.R. 6061, I represent, as all of my colleagues know, a border State. I understand the frustration communities are facing due to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. Illegal immigration is a serious problem, and we do need to do a much better job in addressing this problem. The Senate has passed a comprehensive immigration bill. It is not a perfect bill by any means, but it is aimed at improving security along our borders and at also reforming our immigration laws. I believe that the bill passed through the Senate was a step in the right direction. I was disappointed that the leadership of the House of Representatives refused to appoint conferees to meet with Senate conferees and instead decided to hold hearings around the country to concentrate on differences of opinion and to stir up discontent rather than to seek some common solutions to our substantial immigration problems. The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill. The House passed what I would characterize as a different bill. We should have convened a conference committee. We should have tried to work out differences between those bills. The failure to at least have made a good faith effort in that regard I think is very unfortunate.

Mr. President, with regard to the specifics of this Secure Fence Act--and the Secure Fence Act is a piece of the House-passed immigration bill from about a year ago--I do believe there are locations along our border where fencing makes sense and additional fencing is required. However, we need to be smart about our security. Walls may make good sound bites in political ads, but the reality is that individuals charged with securing our borders have consistently stated that walls and fences are only part of the solution and that there are better and more cost-effective ways to provide for greater border security.

Ralph Basham, who is the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, stated earlier this year in response to a question about the proposal to build 700 miles of double-layered fencing:

It doesn't make sense, it's not practical.

He went on to say that what we need is an appropriate mix of technology and infrastructure and additional personnel.

Let me take a moment to also read some remarks delivered by Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security. These were delivered on March 20 of this year in a speech he gave at the Heritage Foundation. In describing the Secure Border Initiative, also known as SBInet, Secretary Chertoff stated:

We are going to build ourselves what I call a virtual

fence, not a fence of barbed wire and bricks and mortar,

which I will tell you simply doesn't work, because people can

go over that kind of fence but rather a smart fence, a fence

that makes use of physical tools but also tools about

information sharing and information management that let us

identify people coming across the border and let us plan the

interception and apprehension in a way that serves our

purposes and maximizes our resources thereby giving our

border patrol the best leverage they can have in order to

make sure that they are apprehending the most people.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security selected Boeing as its contractor for this Secure Border Initiative. Under Boeing's proposal, it will build a network of approximately 1,800 towers along the southern border. It is unclear how mandating 700 miles of fencing as is proposed in this pending bill will fit into the proposal which Boeing has made and which has been selected by the Department of Homeland Security and whether the two together make sense. Unfortunately, the bill as currently drafted does not provide the Department of Homeland Security with the discretion that Department needs in order to determine the most appropriate means to secure the border. It also ties their hands with regard to the use and the placement of fencing. I do not think we should be mandating over 700 miles of fencing at specific locations. I do not think this Senate and those of us here in the Congress have enough detailed knowledge of the various areas along the border to be making the decision as to the specific areas where fencing needs to be built.

It is also clear that the cost per mile is something we do not have a good handle on at this time in our debate. According to the Department of Homeland Security, it costs approximately $4.4 million for a single layer of fencing per mile. The bill we are debating today mandates double-layer fencing, which would add up to about $6.6 billion for the 730 miles of fencing required under this bill.

In discussions with local law enforcement, local, State, and Federal law enforcement along the border in the southern part of New Mexico, we have meetings with what we call the Southwest New Mexico Border Security Task Force, and at some of those meetings I have attended the point has been raised by local security officials that the location of the proposed double-layer fencing in this bill is, in their view, at least, at the wrong place.

The bill also mandates fencing in some areas where we just spent millions of dollars per mile to build vehicle barriers rather than fencing because it was the judgment of the Border Patrol that vehicle barriers were more appropriate in those areas.

If we are going to spend billions of dollars to place a fence along over one-third of our southern border, we should at least ensure that it is in the right location and that the Department of Homeland Security can make necessary adjustments in the interest of securing our borders. To this end, I

hope to offer an amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the ability to modify the placement and the use of fencing that is mandated in this bill; that is, he has that discretion to make those modifications if the Secretary determines that such use or placement of the fencing is not the best way to achieve and to maintain operational control of the border. I believe this is a reasonable amendment. I believe it will help ensure that DHS has the flexibility it needs to alter this proposal if the proposal is determined not to advance our overall security strategy.

I hope that the majority party will allow a vote on this important measure and that they will support this important measure. Let me be clear. I believe we need to do whatever it takes to secure our borders. You cannot have a nation without secure borders. I have consistently worked to secure increased funding for vehicle barriers, for surveillance equipment, and for additional Border Patrol agents, but I also believe we need to pursue that secure border in the most effective way both from a security standpoint and in terms of the overall cost of the security.

Mr. President, that is my description of the first amendment I do hope to offer. Let me also speak briefly about an amendment I hope to offer to this legislation This is regarding the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2006. This is an amendment which is cosponsored by Senator Domenici of my State. It will provide local law enforcement in border communities with much needed assistance in combating border- related criminal activity.

During our debate on the immigration bill, this legislation was adopted by a vote of 84 to 6. It was also adopted by unanimous consent as part of the Senate's Homeland Security appropriations bill.

For far too long, law enforcement agencies operating along the border have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of the Federal Government to provide adequate security of the border. It is time that the Federal Government recognize that border communities should not have to bear that burden alone. This amendment would establish a competitive grant program within the Department of Homeland Security. These grants would help local law enforcement situated along the border to cover some of the costs they incur as a result of dealing with illegal immigration, with drug trafficking, with stolen vehicles, and with other border-related crimes.

The amendment authorizes $50 million a year to enable law enforcement within 100 miles of the border to hire additional personnel, to obtain necessary equipment, to cover the cost of overtime, and to cover additional transportation costs. Law enforcement outside of this 100- mile geographical limit would be eligible if the Secretary of Homeland Security certified that they are located in what we call a high-impact area.

The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles of border with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies that are located along the border are small rural departments charged with patrolling very large areas of land with very few officers and with very limited resources. According to a 2001 study by the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration exceeded $89 million in each and every year. Counties along the southwest border are some of the poorest in our country, and they are not in a good position to cover these initial costs. The States of Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of emergency in order to provide local law enforcement with immediate assistance in addressing criminal activity along the border, and it is time that the Federal Government step up and share some of this burden.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment again as they have in the past. Let me make it clear to my colleagues I am offering this because, although it was adopted as part of the immigration bill, we need to once again adopt this amendment and attach it to this bill if this bill in fact winds up going to the President for signature.

Mr. President, let me now change subjects once more and speak not about the Secure Fence Act, which is the legislation the Senate is dealing with today, but to speak about a subject that has been given very short shrift here on the Senate floor in recent weeks and months; that is, Congress's failure to enact any serious legislation with respect to the major health care problems facing our Nation. While problems such as the fact that 47 million uninsured Americans continue to be ignored by this Congress, by this administration, what is equally disappointing to me is that there are a number of Federal health programs that we are failing to reauthorize each year, and that number continues to grow. These are programs which are public, they are well- known, and I believe the failure of the Congress to reauthorize these is a major neglect of our responsibilities.

Although the Appropriations Committee continues to provide resources for a number of these expired Federal programs, Congress has increasingly failed to provide the roadmap to the executive branch for how these funds are expected to be spent. In fact, in each of the last several years, the Congress has ceded more of its legislative and its oversight roles in regard to health care to the executive branch in what one head of a national physician organization referred to as ``inexcusable inaction.'' The result is that Congress is increasingly acting more like a trade association in trying to lobby the executive branch of Government to do things related to health care than it is acting as a legislative branch actually considering and passing legislation on these important issues.

I find myself being asked by colleagues to cosign letters to the administration urging them to use their discretion, their administrative discretion, their administrative authority to essentially sidestep the law, ignore the law, take unilateral action to address some of these health care issues that we in the Congress seem unable or unwilling to deal with in legislation.

That is, I fear, the sad legacy of this 109th Congress on health care policy. When the question is raised: What did the 109th Congress do to improve health care for Americans, I think the answer almost certainly will be very little, if anything.

First, let's take the Medicare physician payment formula. As part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress enacted a provision that attempted to save Medicare money, and it did so by placing physician payments on an automatically adjusting formula called the sustainable growth rate or SGR. During the economic boom of the 1990s, this SGR formula worked well for physicians, and physicians did receive positive updates year after year during that period.

Without getting into great details about the formula that we enacted back in 1997, there are four factors that have caused the formula to result in cuts in payments to physicians in recent years. Let me mention those four factors: First was the economic downturn in the first term of the Bush administration; second, the changes in the composition of managed-care enrollment; third, the addition of more preventive care services; and, fourth, the inclusion of prescription drugs in the calculation of the formula.

Congress created a mess with a poorly devised formula and, in 2001, more than two-thirds of the Members of Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--cosponsored legislation to halt the cuts and to change the manner in which this SGR formula was to be calculated. That legislation, unfortunately, died when the congressional leadership declined to schedule a vote. As a result, physician payments were cut by 5.4 percent in 2002.

In 2002, there were more than 80 percent of the Congress who signed on to cosponsor legislation to fix the physician payment formula, but some deal was brokered that year, 2002, by one of the committee chairs and one physician group to impose a freeze in the payment and backloading the cuts in a budget-neutral manner in later years.

So rather than fixing the problem, that has become the new mode in Congress: we go for year after year patchwork. Physician groups face an impending cut year after year. Congress pushes back the need to truly fix the problem, and the problem grows bigger and bigger, to a point where some would argue it is virtually unfixable at this point.

What do I mean by ``virtually unfixable''? According to a new Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Medicare physician payment formula, one solution to fix the problem would cost $200 billion over the next 10 years. The sham of these annual 1-year adjustments to the Medicare physician payment formula masks the true size of our Nation's budget deficit, as we all know very well that the Congress is not going to allow scheduled cuts to physician payment rates of more than 40 percent in the coming years, as is provided for in the law that is now built into the Congressional Budget Office baseline projections.

So this SGR formula is clearly broken, but the hole that has been created is so deep that the problem is largely unsolvable at this point. The problem is made worse, of course, by the very fact that Congress has failed to pass a budget this year. In its next budget-- hopefully, next year--Congress needs to enact, in my view, a ``truth in budgeting'' amendment for Medicare physician payments so that we can admit the true level of our Nation's deficit by revising the payment formula baseline, and through that device address the problem with the SGR formula in a forthright manner.

It is, sadly, too late to hope that we can solve all of this problem this year in this 109th Congress. I urge congressional leadership and organizations that represent physicians groups to push to resolve this annual crisis in the next Congress--early in the next Congress--in what would be a far more honest and open manner that would lead to a permanent fix with respect to this physician payment formula.

Unfortunately, the Medicare physician payment formula is just one example of the much larger institutional problem facing the Congress in coming to grips with health care issues. Just a year ago Congress failed to restore more than $1 billion in expiring funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. While there is not a single Member of Congress who would admit to not supporting the State Children's Health Insurance Program, congressional leadership has failed to find a way to ensure that $1 billion in dedicated resources to SCHIP was actually available to spend on the program.

Now SCHIP faces a larger problem because the States are estimating a $900 million shortfall in fiscal year 2007 in order to provide current levels of health insurance coverage for children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics and 85 other national organizations in a letter to Congress dated September 18:

Without additional federal funding to avert these

shortfalls, states may have to reduce their SCHIP enrollment,

placing health care insurance coverage for over 500,000 low-

income children at risk. States may also be forced to enact

harmful changes to their SCHIP programs, such as curtailing

benefits, increasing beneficiary cost-sharing or reducing

provider payments.

Just a few years ago, Congress and the administration provided what is now estimated to be a $700 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit to our Nation's seniors. Yet somehow we cannot find our way to provide 1 percent of that amount for our Nation's children to avert a shortfall in funding in order to ensure that not only prescription drugs but comprehensive health care is provided to those low-income children.

Four days before that, the Institute of Medicine issued a report noting that despite a profound epidemic confronting our Nation with respect to childhood obesity, the Federal Government, the food industry, schools, and others have made little progress in stemming this growing tide of childhood obesity.

In 2 straight years, the Senate has passed amendments to the Agriculture appropriations bill by overwhelming majorities to increase funding for programs such as TEAM Nutrition, only to see that money disappear once we got into conference with the House. What is needed, in my view, is national leadership, both by the administration and by the Congress. We have failed to deal with this extremely important issue affecting the long-term health of many of our children.

In addition to confronting expiring provisions with programs such as Medicare and SCHIP and major problems through the appropriations process in getting adequate funds to deal with childhood obesity, I also want to raise the issue of Congress' failure to enact reauthorizations of numerous Federal programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in its annual report entitled ``Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations'':

The Congress has appropriated about $159 billion for fiscal

year 2006 for programs and activities whose authorizations of

appropriations have expired.

Some of the major health care programs whose authorizations have expired include the National Institutes of Health, the Ryan White CARE grant programs, the veterans' medical care, the Indian Health Service, and the Administration on Aging.

Considering all the Congress must consider on an annual basis, it is not surprising that some programs are not reauthorized in a timely fashion. What has become disappointing is that there appears to be a lack of effort in some instances to even try or to bring these issues to closure despite the vast need.

For example, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act expired in 2001, and for 6 long years American Indians and Alaska Natives have tried repeatedly to reauthorize the programs administered by the Indian Health Service. Moreover, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report in 2003 entitled, ``A Quite Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Need in Indian Country,'' that called for immediate passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and for the Federal Government to ``act immediately to reverse this shameful and unjust treatment'' that is the Indian health care system and funding levels.

And yet, here we are 3 years later and the Committee on Indian Affairs has reported a reauthorization bill to the Senate floor over 6 months ago, but this bill has not yet been bought up for debate.

Failure with respect to the Medicare physician payment formula, the State Children's Health Insurance Program shortfalls, childhood obesity, and the Indian Health Service are just examples of a larger problem that has grown over the years.

Other programs, such as the Health Professions Act, so desperately need to be reauthorized and improved that both the administration and Appropriations Committee recognize are not working well, so they continue to get dramatically cut or even zeroed out. Meanwhile, as a Nation, there are areas in the country with terrible health profession shortages, and we are now importing 25 percent of our physician workforce from foreign nations, which is not a good result either for our Nation or for the country from which we have taken their doctors.

Mr. President, our Nation's health care system is in a mess, and yet the Congress is not addressing rather critical and fundamental issues due to inaction, neglect, or inattention.

In the coming days and during the lameduck session, I urge the leadership of the Congress to begin the work of addressing these important health care problems facing our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his comments, and I join him and Senator Alexander and many other colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation and congratulate our majority leader, Senator Frist, and our minority leader, Senator Reid, for their leadership in getting this issue introduced into the Senate. I hope very much this bipartisan effort can succeed and that before the end of the 109th Congress, we can see this legislation on the President's desk for signature.

This bill is the result, as Senator Domenici said, of a close, cooperative effort by three of our Senate committees: the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Senator Domenici chairs and of which I am the ranking member, and Senator Alexander is on that committee as well; the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I commend the staffs of those committees

for their hard work in producing this legislation, as well as the personal staffs of all Senators involved.

As Senator Domenici pointed out, this is a major piece of legislation which arises out of the good work that was done by the National Academies. This report which was done there made a series of recommendations which are clearly specific which will intend to put the country on a track to reverse some of the unfortunate trends we have seen in connection with our ability to compete with other countries in the world.

Senator Domenici, Senator Alexander, Senator Mikulski, and I introduced three bills in January of this year in order to put into legislative form the recommendations of the National Academies report. Each of these bills went to a different committee.

Since all three of us on the Senate floor today are members of the Energy Committee and since Senator Domenici chairs that committee, we were able to move more quickly in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with the legislation that was assigned to that committee, S. 2197, which authorizes a number of programs to strengthen the Department of Energy's role in promoting stronger math and science education from kindergarten through graduate school. It creates a Director for Math and Science Education in the Department of Energy. The bill strengthens the role of our national laboratories in this K-12 math and science education. It authorizes a program whereby national laboratories adopt a nearby school to increase its math and science proficiency.

The bill goes on and on with other initiatives which are taken directly from the recommendations of the Augustine commission that was referred to earlier. These provisions that are in S. 2197 have remained largely intact in the legislation that is being introduced today. In some cases, we had to reduce the authorization levels so that the increases to particular programs were ramped up over a period of time instead of suddenly doubling existing programs as had been recommended.

In the education area, the National Academies report assigned highest priorities to this need to strengthen K-12 math and science education, and this legislation does so in a variety of ways. Senator Domenici elaborated on some of those. I will not go into great detail about them, but they are directly taken from the National Academies report.

We are all aware here in the Senate that we operate on two different tracks: we operate on the track of authorizing legislation and the track of appropriating legislation. The legislation we are talking about today and introducing today is authorizing legislation, so it is only one of the steps needed in order to get action accomplished here in the Congress. But it is an important step, and it is particularly important when you are setting a long-term goal.

That is what this legislation attempts to do: It tries to look long term. It tries to say that we need to ramp up our investment in these critical areas of concern so that 5 years from now, 10 years from now, we will see a change in these trend lines which have so concerned the National Academy of Sciences as well as many of us here in the Congress.

This bill authorizes $73 billion to be spent over 5 years to maintain our Nation's competitive edge. Of that, about $20 billion is considered new funding; that is, it is funding above the 2006 level at which we are today. These are only authorizations. It is not an appropriation. It is going to be our job, and it is not an easy job, but it is going to be the job of the Congress not only to appropriate these new moneys we are here authorizing but also to make sure those moneys are not appropriated at the expense of other important programs in the Department of Education or in the National Science Foundation or in the Department of Energy. I think we are all aware that this has to be new money in a genuine sense of that term.

Again, I thank my colleagues for joining in this bipartisan effort. I believe this is a very good piece of legislation. It is an important piece of legislation. Often we allow the urgent to crowd out adequate consideration for the important items that ought to be on our agenda. This is an exception to that. This is a case where we are giving attention to the important issues.

Let me particularly single out for praise Senator Alexander. He has, at every step in this process, been pushing to get this initiative one step closer to the goal line. I compliment him for doing that. I compliment him for the introduction of this legislation today, and I compliment all my other colleagues who have been so cooperative in seeing that happen as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI, became a part of the United States 30 years ago with high expectations, but today they are an American community in deep distress. The CNMI economy is being bled by a rapid decline in its garment industry as the result of new international trade rules, by losses in its tourism industry, and by the loss of over $100 million each year in wages that are sent offshore by foreign guest workers. The community on Saipan, where 90 percent of the population resides is experiencing increasing problems with water quality and service, the electric system has returned to scheduled outages after years of reliable service, and overburdened wastewater systems cause regular contamination of the land, air,

and water. The Government has recently made layoffs in an effort to balance the budget and has even cut back the number of workdays for those who continue to have jobs. Unemployment is conservatively estimated at 14 percent and rising, and a shocking 65 percent of children receive food assistance. Only 6 months ago, the Government asked Congress for an unprecedented $140 million in new appropriations to maintain government operations and meet critical needs.

There are many reasons for this dire situation; some are temporary, others are systemic. One of the systemic causes of this situation which should be addressed promptly by Congress and the administration is the local government's labor and immigration policies, particularly their promotion of an extremely high population growth rate, 500 percent in 30 years, and their promotion of the use of alien guest workers instead of U.S. citizens for nearly all private sector occupations. In order to establish a stable and sustainable foundation for the CNMI's future, a new Federal immigration and labor policy framework and Federal institutions are needed to properly control the borders and to properly manage the guest worker program.

When the CNMI became a U.S. territory in 1976, most U.S. laws were immediately extended. However, the granting of U.S. citizenship to the inhabitants and the extension of U.S. immigration law were not to occur until ``after termination of the Trusteeship Agreement''; that is, not until after the international community, acting through the United Nations, recognized the extension of U.S. sovereignty over the islands by terminating the U.N. Trusteeship Agreement.

Unfortunately, during the 10-year period between U.S. approval of the covenant in 1976 and U.N. termination of the trusteeship in 1986, the CNMI began the importation of foreign workers to exploit a combination of immigration, wage, and trade privileges. In 1986, the Reagan administration wrote to the CNMI Governor stating that ``the tremendous growth in alien labor [is] . . . extremely disturbing'' and urged ``timely and effective action to reverse the . . . situation.'' The administration warned that ``the uncontrolled influx of alien workers . . . can only result in increased social and cultural problems.'' The CNMI policy was also inconsistent with the legislative history of the covenant which states that local immigration control was intended to restrict immigration in order to protect the indigenous community from being overwhelmed by immigrants.

Notwithstanding these concerns expressed by the Reagan administration, and later the Bush and Clinton administrations, the CNMI continued to import alien guest workers and other, nonworker, aliens. The population of 16,000 in 1976 has exploded to an estimated 80,000 today.

Mr. President, in 1999, the Northern Mariana Islands Covenant Act Implementation Act was reported favorably by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and it passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent in 2000. It would have extended the Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, to the CNMI as anticipated under the covenant agreement which joined the United States and CNMI in political union in 1976. The measure was reintroduced in the 107th Congress and was again reported favorably by the Energy Committee. I was pleased that the measure continued to have bipartisan support at that time, including the ``strong support'' of the administration.

On June 21,2006, I joined with my colleague and the chairman of the Energy Committee, Pete Domenici, in a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, copied to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, asking whether there have been developments that would cause the administration to alter its support for this bill. We have not yet received a reply.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the recent letter to Secretary Kempthorne, a copy of the original, 2001 letter of support from the administration, and a copy of a section-by-section summary of the legislation all be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. President, I believe the reasons the Administration and Congress should continue to support legislative action are compelling, and I present them here for the consideration of my colleagues and the public. In short, there are five reasons that legislation is needed to more fully implement the covenant agreement that ties the CNMI and the United States in political union: the lack of local institutional capacity, national security, ineffective law enforcement against organized crime, an unsustainable economic model, and inadequate protection for alien workers. I believe that any one of these reasons is a basis for the administration to reaffirm its support. All five reasons make the case for continued support overwhelming.

First, congressional action is needed because the CNMIs lack the institutional capacity to control its borders or to properly manage immigration and guest worker programs. In 1997, reports by both the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, and by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform found that the CNMI does not have, and never will have, the capacity to properly control its borders because border control requires sovereign authority to operate overseas consulates, issue visas, and have access to classified national and international ``watch'' lists. During the Energy Committee's hearings on this legislation in September of 1999, the General Counsel of the INS, Mr. Bo Cooper, was asked, ``Do you foresee any circumstances under which the government of the Commonwealth could operate an immigration system that is satisfactory to the Federal Government?'' Mr. Cooper responded, ``No, I do not.'' This fundamental fact has not changed with time, and it alone constitutes a basis for enacting legislation to extend Federal immigration control to the CNMI.

Second, Federal legislative action is needed because the post-9/11 environment requires that the United States secure its borders. The CNMI is an American community that deserves that same level of protection from attack as other American communities. The United States also has important military assets and training facilities in the CNMI, and our Nation's Naval and Air Force bases in nearby Guam are increasingly important both regionally and globally. The threat from North Korea, tension between Taiwan and China, and terrorist activity in the nations of Southeast Asia, all underscore the strategic importance of the Marianas. Yet the lack of institutional capacity to secure the borders underscores the vulnerability of the Marianas, and the Nation. Border control is an inherently sovereign function, and given the increasing importance of the Marianas, the increased threats they face, and the obligation of the President to protect all U.S. communities, this function can no longer be delegated to local authorities.

A third reason for congressional action is the CNMI's lack of capacity to screen for criminals entering the islands. This deficiency has contributed to the establishment of organized crime elements from Japan, China, and Russia in the community and to an increase in illegal drug, gambling, prostitution, and trafficking crimes associated with such elements. The 1997 INS report found that: ``[There are] serious deficiencies in all facets of the Marianas' current system of immigration enforcement and control'' and ``There appears to be universal recognition amongst the Mariana Government Authorities that various organized crime groups, such as the Japanese Yakuza, the Chinese Triads, and the Russian Mafia have made inroads into the Marianas . . . Few of these persons are ever detected at the port-of- entry or apprehended while in the Marianas.'' The report recommended that Congress enact legislation to extend the Immigration and Nationality Act.

A fourth reason for congressional action is to change CNMI immigration and labor policies that are unsustainable and contribute to the distress the community now faces. The CNMI, promotes the use of guest workers to fill virtually all private sector jobs: unskilled, skilled, and even professional jobs. In addition, both the CNMI Government and the private sector earn income from the hiring of alien workers but not from hiring U.S. citizens. Consequently, those U.S. citizens who cannot find increasingly

scarce Government work are left to go on welfare or emigrate. Unemployment is conservatively estimated at 14 percent and rising. An astounding 65 percent of children are on food assistance. Also contributing to this unsustainable economic model is the problem of wage remittances. For 2005, it was reported that guest worker remittances to their home countries was well in excess of $100 million. These remittances are bleeding the community of wealth that is no longer available to buy goods and services, create jobs, and otherwise stimulate economic activity for the benefit of the community.

The CNMI's labor and immigration policies also contribute to an unsustainable economy because they result in huge population growth rates which have overwhelmed the community's infrastructure and services. Most of these new residents are very low-wage or no-wage migrants who are a net drain on the economy, consuming more in public services than they contribute in taxes. As a result, water and power are rationed; sewage fouls the land, air, and water; and healthcare and education facilities are seriously overcrowded. Each year the economy struggles to support growing numbers of unemployed U.S. citizens, as well as thousands of nonworking alien and illegal alien residents.

Finally, local labor and immigration policies contribute to an unsustainable economy because the resulting high crime and deteriorating infrastructure create disincentives to investment. Gone are the clean and open beaches and the reliable utilities and services that attracted new hotel and tourist investment 20 years ago. Instead, the CNMI has asked the Congress for a $140 million bailout to sustain an economic model that is fundamentally flawed.

The fifth reason Federal legislative action is needed is to protect guest workers from abuse. Abuse of workers was the driving force behind congressional establishment of the Federal-CNMI Initiative on Labor, Immigration, and Law Enforcement in 1994. Following establishment of this program, Interior Department investigations confirmed the allegations of outrageous abuses, from widespread and systematic cheating of workers out of ages, to improper confinement, to coerced abortions. The worst of these abuses have apparently ended, in part through the efforts of the U.S. Department of the Interior's labor ombudsman. This office was established under the initiative in 1999 as a stop-gap measure because the Energy Committee's efforts to enact reform legislation had run into insurmountable opposition in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Interior labor ombudsman's responsibility was, and remains, to advocate on behalf alien workers; to give them a voice in the face of the inadequately funded and often indifferent local bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, the 2006 ombudsman's report states that while there have been improvements in the treatment of guest workers, ``There are still a number of serious problems that have yet to be effectively addressed by local government officials: ensuring the health and safety of alien workers; inadequate prevention efforts to curb labor abuses through periodic regulatory inspections; unacceptable delay in investigating and adjudicating worker complaints due to failure to allocate sufficient resources to the Department of Labor; difficulty rooting out corruption within the agencies tasked with regulating alien entry and work permitting, and an inability or unwillingness to prosecute repeat offenders.''

Mr. President, if, after 12 years of effort, the chief Federal labor official in the CNMI still finds such systemic problems in the local government's capabilities and commitment to stop the abuse of guest workers, then it is clearly time for Congress to enact reform legislation. Stop-gap measures have only resulted in stop-gap solutions. If foreign-national guest workers continue to be mistreated under the U.S. flag, then it is the duty of the Congress to extend the Federal laws and institutions necessary for their protection.

I am disappointed with the lack of priority which the Department of the Interior has given the CNMI Initiative during recent years. Since 2000 the Department has failed to submit an annual report on the initiative. This year the report was finally submitted but only after the Department was twice directed to do so in congressional appropriations report language. As for content, the report is completely inadequate. It was composed only of a statement by the Interior labor ombudsman and it failed to include the input of Federal law enforcement officials or any of the socioeconomic data needed to properly assess socioeconomic and law enforcement trends in the islands. Without regular tracking of census and economic data, such as population, household income, and government revenues and expenditures, Congress must rely upon press reports to assess conditions in the islands. Nevertheless, the information contained in the Department's narrowly scoped report still leads to the conclusion that conditions have not fundamentally changed with respect to the protection of guest workers, and Federal legislative action is still needed.

Any one of these five reasons--lack of institutional capacity, border control, law enforcement, unsustainable economics, and inadequate worker protection--is sufficient cause for Federal action. All five reasons make an overwhelming case. Certain fundamental facts that existed in 2001 when the administration first announced its support for legislation remain unchanged. For example, the CNMI still lacks the capacity to properly operate immigration and guest worker programs. Other facts are new and provide further justification for the administration to reaffirm its support. For example, after 9/11 the United States is at greater risk of attack and must secure its borders and protect the U.S. citizens of the Marianas as we protect all communities on American soil

Border security and immigration control are inherent functions of national sovereignty that were intended to be extended to the CNMI following international recognition of the extension of U.S. sovereignty over the islands. That recognition occurred in 1986. As predicted by the Reagan administration 20 years ago, the failure of Congress to extend these laws has resulted in unacceptable social and cultural problems. Four U.S. administrations have expressed serious concern with these conditions, and two administrations have endorsed legislation to extend the INA with appropriate protections for the local economy. There have been no developments since 2001 that provide a basis for the administration to alter its strong support for this approach. In fact, the case for extending Federal policies and institutions to the CNMI to protect the community and to stabilize its economy is more compelling than ever.

I look forward to receipt of the administration's reply to the committee's June 21 2006 letter, and to working with them, Chairman Domenici, and representatives of the CNMI on legislation to extend Federal immigration policies and institutions to the CNMI as anticipated by the covenant and as needed to protect the community and restore its economy to a sustainable future.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, June 21, 2006.

Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,

Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Kempthorne: The U.S. Senate is currently

engaged in a debate regarding our Nation's immigration

policies, including discussion of border security, labor

demand, and the status of persons currently in the country

without legal status. As members of the Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources which has jurisdiction with respect to

the Territories of the United States, we have, over the

course of several years, considered these issues with respect

to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

On June 5, 2001, the Committee reported legislation, the

Northern Mariana Islands Covenant Implementation Act (S. 507,

S. Rpt. 107-28) that would have extended Federal immigration

law to the CNMI with certain transition, exemption, and

assistance provisions. This legislation was reported with a

statement of support by the Administration as set forth in

the letter of May 15, 2001 from Assistant Attorney General

Daniel J. Bryant to then-Chairman Frank H. Murkowski.

Given the passage of time, we are writing to ask whether

there have been any developments in the CNMI that would cause

the Administration to readdress their statement from 2001. We

ask that you please provide a response within 30 days, as

Chairman of the Interagency Group on Insular Affairs, and

direct any questions that you may have to

Josh Johnson or Allen Stayman of the Committee staff at 202-

224-4971. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Pete V. Domenici,

Chairman.

Jeff Bingaman,

Ranking Member.

Mr. President, I want to add my congratulations to Senator Domenici on this great achievement, achieving this milestone of becoming one of eight Senators in the history of our country to have cast this many votes.

I have had the good fortune in the 24 years I have been here in the Senate to serve with Senator Domenici, and also, of course more recently, to serve with him on the Energy Committee as the ranking member. I have seen the leadership he has provided to deal with our energy issues.

He is the longest serving Senator to have served from the State of New Mexico. Of course, he has cast more votes on behalf of the people of the State of New Mexico than anyone in the history of this country. For that he deserves great recognition.

The people of the State I represent recognize his great contribution and appreciate it greatly. I congratulate him today on reaching this milestone.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is the one that the floor manager, the chairman, indicated was to be considered now. It relates to wildfire management and is one that has strong support on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I know Senator Burns wishes to speak as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, that is correct. This is in modified form from what was earlier filed as an amendment. I believe the concerns earlier raised have been resolved.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original coauthor of the Community Health Center Employee Health Coverage Act of 2006 with Senators Smith and Murkowski. I ask for unanimous consent that a fact sheet with respect to the legislation be printed in the Record.