Floor Statements

Mr. President, once again, I am proud to join my friend Senator Feingold as a co-sponsor of legislation that will require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports in electronic form. This bill will finally remove the exemption the Senate has given itself from an important requirement of campaign finance disclosure laws that apply to everyone else, including candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Political Action Committees (PACs).

Political committees active in Federal elections must submit their quarterly financial reports for disclosure by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Anyone interested can nearly instantaneously download the reports from the FEC website and conduct computer searches to learn about the contributions and expenditures of individual candidates for the House, non-Senate national party committees and PACs. The current problem is that they cannot do the same for Senate candidates and parties because of the Senate's insistence on paper rather than electronic filing. The FEC must do more processing of Senate paper reports than of House electronic ones. This involves printing or copying the Senate reports, up to 10,000 pages a day at times, hand- coding transactions that cannot be automatically processed, the keypunching the data into the electronic database. House electronic reports do not need the same treatment. The end result is that in contrast to the House, information from the Senate paper reports are often not available until well after the election has occurred.

Because of this problem, it is impossible for voters to be well- informed about the campaign finance information of their Senators and Senate candidates. If a voter wants to consider the nature of the campaign finance support received by a Senate candidate and compare that support to Senate legislative votes as a factor in deciding for whom they will cast a vote, they simply cannot do so due to the antiquated nature of the reporting system.

To address this problem, our legislation requires Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. Within 24 hours of receipt of those reports, the Secretary is required to forward those reports to the FEC. The FEC, in turn is required to make those reports available on the Internet within 24 hours as they do other reports. Therefore, electronic versions of Senate reports will be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing.

Electronic reports are not only transmitted instantly but are more accurate than paper submissions because software can easily correct mistakes. On the other hand, hand entering of data is always prone to error. Furthermore, the data in electronic reports can be rapidly searched via the Internet for answers to specific questions. Voters will no longer have to go through the time consuming process of reading pages and pages filed by Senate candidates or Senate party committees to figure out the major donors and their employers, and the major recipients of campaign spending. Instead, they can downlown a filed report from the FEC website onto their personal computers and quickly locate the information they need. This creates effective public disclosure.

The Senate's current failure to provide its constituents with electronically disclosed, timely information is unconscionable. Senate filings should follow the same criteria as other campaign finance reports. There must not be a separate standard for the Senate. Ironically, while they do not currently file electronically, Senators and Senate candidates already use electronic software in compiling their paper reports. If Senators and Senate candidates can use technology to run their offices and websites, why can't they use it to better inform their own constituents about how their campaigns are funded? Our constituents have a right to that information.

Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, along with my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, is very simple. The Obligation of Funds Transparency Act of 2005 would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects.

As my colleagues may know, report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects.

According to information compiled from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That's an increase of 240 percent. In terms of dollars, the earmarking has gone from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period. The practice of earmarking funds in appropriations bills has simply lurched out of control.

At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this: ``If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will have.''

Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans?

Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that: ``(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one certainty is that the resolution of this situation will require difficult choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources or raising

financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address the competing claims.''

It falls on the Congress my friends. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble.

We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.

Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the Government Accountability Office, the unfunded federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is $124,000--and that is often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children too. But, instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and much, much more expensive.

The Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly stated that, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' They also stated that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that, because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share ofthe nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive. . . effect on the economy.''

Where is it going to end? We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't--they deserve better treatment from us. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, along with my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, is very simple. The Obligation of Funds Transparency Act of 2005 would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects.

As my colleagues may know, report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects.

According to information compiled from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That's an increase of 240 percent. In terms of dollars, the earmarking has gone from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period. The practice of earmarking funds in appropriations bills has simply lurched out of control.

At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this: ``If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will have.''

Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans?

Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that: ``(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one certainty is that the resolution of this situation will require difficult choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources or raising

financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address the competing claims.''

It falls on the Congress my friends. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble.

We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.

Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the Government Accountability Office, the unfunded federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is $124,000--and that is often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children too. But, instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and much, much more expensive.

The Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly stated that, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' They also stated that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that, because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share ofthe nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive. . . effect on the economy.''

Where is it going to end? We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't--they deserve better treatment from us. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed S. 161, the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005. It is my hope that this bill will be considered quickly by the House of Representatives and sent to the President for his signature in the near future.

I want to thank Senator Kyl and his staff for their work in helping to develop this compromise legislation. I also want to thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and their staffs on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for their efforts in reaching an agreement on this legislation during the last Congress and helping to move it through the legislative process. In addition, I want to recognize the work of Congressmen Renzi and Hayworth who have championed this legislation in the House of Representatives.

Late last year, after several years of negotiation and compromise, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a nearly identical measure. This bill provides a sound framework for a fair and equal value exchange of 50,000 acres of private and public land in Northern Arizona. It also addresses water issues associated with the exchange of lands located within the Verde River Basin watershed by limiting water usage on certain exchanged lands and by supporting the development of a collaborative science-based water resource planning and management entity for the Verde River Basin watershed.

The Arizona delegation and a broad array of local area officials are strongly supportive of the legislation because it will offer significant benefits for all parties. Benefits will accrue to the U.S. Forest Service and the public with the consolidation of checkerboard lands and the protection and enhanced management of extensive forest and grasslands. The communities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde also will benefit in terms of economic development opportunities, water supply, and other important purposes.

While facilitating the exchange of public and private lands is a very important objective of this legislation, and indeed, was the original purpose when we began working on it several years ago, the provisions concerning water management are perhaps even more important. Since introducing the original legislation over 2 years ago, I have heard from hundreds of Arizonans and learned first-hand of the significant water issues raised by the transfer of Federal land into private ownership. We have modified the bill to take into account many of the concerns raised during meetings held throughout northern Arizona, including removing certain lands entirely from the exchange.

There is growing recognition of the need to develop and promote the wise management of Arizona's limited water supplies, particularly with the extended drought coupled with rapid population growth. As such, the bill passed by the Senate would not only limit water usage on the exchanged lands, but also provide an opportunity to encourage sound water management in northern Arizona through the creation of a collaborative, science-based decision-making body to advance essential planning and management at the State and local level in Northern Arizona.

To be successful, this effort will require the involvement of all the stakeholders with water supply responsibilities and interests. It will also require a solid foundation of knowledge about available resources and existing demands. We are fortunate to have an existing model of collaborative science-based water resource planning and management with the Upper San Pedro Partnership in the Sierra Vista subwatershed of Arizona. In my view, the establishment of a similar, cooperative body in the Verde Basin will be a vital step in assuring the wise use of our limited water resources.

Again, I want to thank all of the parties involved with this legislation.

Mr. President, the Certification of Indian Rental Proceeds Act of 2005 was originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Byron Dorgan, and Senator Tim Johnson as original co-sponsors of this bill.

The Certification of Indian rental proceeds amends Title 25 USC Section 488 to permit actual rental proceeds from a lease to constitute the rental value of that land, and to satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land.

S. 1481--Indian Land Probate Reform Technical Corrections Act of 2005

Mr. President, the Indian Land Probate Reform Technical Corrections Act of 2005, was originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I'm pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill.

The Indian probate reform technical corrections amendments, amends the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 by correcting provisions relating to non-testamentary disposition, partition of highly fractionated Indian land, and Tribal probate codes.

s. 1482--gila river indian community reservation contracts act of 2005

Mr. President, the Gila River Indian Community Reservation Contracts Act of 2005 was originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I'm pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill.

The Gila River Indian Community reservation contracts, is a technical amendment to allow binding arbitration in all contracts and not just leases on the Gila River Indian Community reservation.

S. 1483--Definition of Indian Student Count Act of 2005

Mr. President, the Definition of Indian Student Count Act of 2005 was originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I'm pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill.

The definition of Indian student count, amends the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act of 1998 to include the registration of Indian students in the Spring semester.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my amendment No. 1557, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1557, which is at the desk. I ask the clerk continue the reading of the amendment because it is short and important.

Mr. President, I asked that amendment be read because there may be various interpretations of what this amendment is and what it means. What it means to the sponsors--and I am grateful to my friend, Senator Warner, the distinguished chairman of the committee, and Senator Graham and others, including Senator Collins and others who have supported this. Basically, it says the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation shall be the document that governs interrogation of prisoners who are under Department of Defense custody.

Some of us may like to see this expanded to treatment of prisoners who are under custody of different agencies of Government. This applies to the Department of Defense.

Before I proceed further, I ask my friend from Virginia--as he knows, we have two amendments. One is this one which we have just read, and the other one concerning cruel and inhumane treatment, which we are sort of still working on. Is it the desire of the Chairman we take up both amendments at this time?

I thank the distinguished chairman. For the information of my colleagues, the second amendment, which would be before the Senate for consideration at a different time, basically says that cruel and inhumane treatment will not be inflicted upon any prisoner, and we would adhere to the Geneva Conventions as well as other international agreements concerning the treatment of prisoners.

But on this issue it says this amendment would prohibit cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in the detention of the U.S. Government, and it is basically fairly straightforward and simple, as I read.

The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. The manual embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today in the midst of the war on terror.

I think we all agree to fight terrorism we must obtain intelligence. But we have to ensure that it is reliable and acquired in a way that is humane. To do otherwise not only offends our national morals but undermines our efforts to protect the Nation's security.

Abuse of prisoners harms--harms, not helps--us in the war on terror because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our honorable country in the eyes of millions. Mistreatment of our prisoners also endangers U.S. servicemembers who might be captured by the enemy--if not in this war, then in the next.

I want to emphasize to some of my friends who say that we should do anything that is necessary to extract intelligence, No. 1, torture doesn't work; No. 2, if extraneous or extraordinary actions have to be taken--and there may be cases, and we will get into this in the next amendment, where someone has information that it is believed poses an immediate threat to the United States--then I would suppose that it would be entirely appropriate, under law, that the President of the United States could make that judgment and take whatever actions are necessary. In the meantime, the Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that are proven effective in extracting lifesaving information from the most hardened prisoners. It also recognizes that torture and cruel treatment are ineffective methods because they induce prisoners to say what their interrogators want to hear, even if it is not true.

It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Our values are different from those of our enemies. When colleagues or others may come on this floor and say: Well, they do it, others do it, al-Qaida does it, other nations in the world do it, what differentiates us, the United States of America, from other countries is the fact that we do not. We do not abuse human rights. We do not do it. I would argue the pictures, terrible pictures from Abu Ghraib, harmed us--not only in the Arab world, which is an area of great concern but it also harmed us dramatically amongst friendly nations, the Europeans, many of our allies.

Of course, they were appalled. Of course, we were all appalled. As we go through this later on, there were interesting exchanges between the civilian general counsel in the Pentagon and the military judge advocate general's--members of the judge advocate general, who were deeply concerned about regulations that were proposed for adoption, and exhibited very serious and fundamental concerns. For a short period of time, unfortunately, those objections by the uniform lawyers in the Pentagon were overruled, and we went through a period of time--thank God only a few months--where interrogation techniques were allowed which were then repealed, I am happy to say.

Our friends in London and elsewhere find themselves confronting the same evil that we do. Preserving the common values we hold dear is more important than ever. We fight not just to preserve our lives and liberties but our morals, and we will never allow the terrorists to take those from us. In this war that we must win--that we will win--we should never fight evil with evil.

As I said, the amendment I am offering would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in Department of Defense custody. The manual has been developed by the executive branch for its own uses, with a new edition written to take into account the needs of the war on terror for the new classified annexes due to be issued soon.

The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based on the field manual is to cut down on the significant level of confusion that still exists with respect to which interrogation techniques are allowed. Two weeks ago, the Committee on Armed Services held hearings, under the chairmanship of Senator Lindsey Graham, with a slew of high- level Defense Department officials from regional commanders to judge advocate generals from the various branches to the Department's deputy general counsel.

A chief topic of discussion was what specific interrogation techniques are permitted, in what environment, with which DOD detainees, by whom and when. The answers included a whole lot of confusion. We got a bunch of contradictory answers. Several: I would have to take a look at that. A few: Let me get back to you.

Let's think about that for a second. If at the highest level of the Pentagon they do not know what exact techniques are allowed and what aren't, what is going on in the prisons? What is going on with the soldiers, the sergeant, the corporal, those who are supposed to do the actual interrogations? What we are trying to do is make sure there are clear and exact standards set for interrogation of prisoners which have held for other wars and are now being updated to take into consideration the kind of war that we are in.

Confusion results in the kind of messes that once again could give America a black eye around the world. We need a clear, simple, and consistent standard. We will have it in the Army Field Manual on interrogation. That is not my opinion but that of many more distinguished military legal minds than mine.

I received a letter recently from a group of people, 11 former high- ranking military officers, including RADM John Hutson and RADM Don Guter, who each served as the Navy's top JAG, and Claudia Kennedy, who was Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. These and other distinguished officers believe that the abuses took place in part because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions which, in some cases, authorized treatment that went beyond what the Field Manual allows and that had the Manual been followed across the board we could have avoided the prisoner abuse scandal.

I am not sure we could have, Mr. President, but wouldn't any of us have done whatever we could to have prevented that?

I ask unanimous consent this letter, dated July 22, 2005, be printed in the Record.

I read from the letter:

We strongly support your proposed amendments to the Defense

Department Authorization bill concerning detainee policy,

including requiring all interrogations of detainees in DOD

custody to conform to the U.S. Army's Field Manual on

Intelligence Interrogation (FM 34-52), and prohibiting the

use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by

any U.S. government agency.

It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu

Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because

our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous

instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that

went beyond what was allowed by the Army Field Manual.

Administration officials confused matters further by

declaring that U.S. personnel are not bound by longstanding

prohibitions of cruel treatment when interrogating non-U.S.

citizens on foreign soil. As a result, we suddenly had one

set of rules for interrogating prisoners of war, and another

for ``enemy combatants;'' one set for Guantanamo, and another

for Iraq; one set for our military, and another for the CIA.

Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to

take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better

than that.

The United States should have one standard for

interrogating enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful, and

humane. Fortunately, America already has the gold standard in

the Army Field Manual. Had the Manual been followed across

the board, we would have been spared the pain of the prisoner

abuse scandal. It should be followed consistently from now

on. And when agencies other than

DOD detain and interrogate prisoners, there should be no

legal loopholes permitting cruel or degrading treatment.

This is signed by GEN Joseph Hoar, LTG Robert Gard, LTG Claudia Kennedy, MG Melvyn Montano, RADM Don Guter, RADM John Hutson, BG David Brahms, BG James Cullen, BG Evelyn Foote, BG David Irvine, BG Richard O'Meara, et cetera, and all of these people, including General Hoar, served as Commander in Chief United States Central Command. These are very credible people. If we had chosen, we could have gotten many more signatories to this amendment.

We are Americans. We hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment no matter how terribly evil or awful they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, and it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for a lot more than that in the world: a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad.

We are better than the terrorists, and we will win because we are better than they are. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this is not about who they are--it is not about who they are. It is about who we are. These are values that distinguish us from our enemies.

President Bush understands that the war on terror is ultimately a battle of ideas, a battle we will win by spreading and standing firmly for the values of decency, democracy, and the rule of law. I stand with him in this commitment. By applying to ourselves the basic standards we rightly preach to others, I believe we will only increase our effectiveness as the world's ultimate champion of liberty.

I thank Senator Warner and Senator Graham and others who have shown an interest. Senator Warner has had a series of hearings for a long period of time. I believe we can do a great service for the military and for the country if we adopt this simple two-paragraph amendment that basically says that prisoners will be treated according to the Army Field Manual, which, by the way, is the tradition of treatment of prisoners for many wars.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a brief comment on the chairman's amendment. Leaving it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense is what caused the huge amount of problems we have today.

I have here--in fact, thanks to the tenacity of the Senator from South Carolina--finally, after a year and a half, 2 years, the memoranda that were submitted by the uniformed JAGS when

the rules for the treatment of prisoners were set up the first time, I say to my friend from Virginia. They all objected to it. They were overruled by the Secretary of Defense and the general counsel.

So now, if I understand it, the amendment of my dear friend from Virginia is going to return that to the Secretary of Defense. I urge him to read these memoranda which we finally got thanks to, again, the Senator from South Carolina: treating OEF detainees inconsistently with the Conventions; arguably lowers the bar for the treatment of U.S. POWs in future conflicts, even when nations agree with the President's status determination. Many would view the more extreme interrogation techniques as violative of international law, other treaties, or customary international law; perhaps violative of their own domestic law. This puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad, either in foreign domestic courts or international fora, to include the ICC.

I remind my colleagues, these are the memoranda that were sent to comment on the Secretary of Defense guidelines for interrogations of prisoners, which were overruled. And then, a couple months later, they were rescinded.

So in all due respect, my friend from Virginia has a degree of confidence in the Secretary of Defense which, frankly, is not validated by what took place and many argue is one of the reasons why we had Abu Ghraib.

So I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thought my colleague wanted me to wait on the additional amendment.

But I will be glad to proceed. Why don't we let the Senator from South Carolina talk, and then maybe, if it is all right, I will offer the other amendment.

I am glad to yield.

Mr. President, I have amendment No. 1556 at the desk. I ask unanimous consent for its modification.

Mr. President, is it the desire that I call up 1556 at this time?

It is modified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment No. 1556 be considered at this time.

Could I ask, maybe we could take a maximum of 5 minutes, 3 or 4 minutes on this amendment, for which I had unanimous consent, and then go back to allow the Senator from Alabama to speak.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to propose this amendment, the Senator from Alabama be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, the amendment be set aside, and the Senator from South Carolina be allowed to propose his amendment.

As modified.

As modified.

Mr. President, with all due respect to the chairman, I don't think that is going to quite work because the Senator from Alabama needs 10 minutes. And if you are using your 9 and I only have 2, that doesn't get it done. I ask unanimous consent that I have 3 minutes to discuss my amendment.

That is an additional 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following that, the Senator from Alabama be recognized for 10 minutes in addition to the unanimous consent agreement, and then the Senator from South Carolina be allowed to propose his amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment and the previous amendment, No. 1557.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Collins be added as cosponsors. I believe we are still scheduled for a vote at 5:30.

Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. Government. The amendment doesn't sound like anything new. That is because it isn't. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 states simply that: No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, is the same. The Binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration, ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year's DOD authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment as the U.S. has long defined these terms. All of this seems to be common sense and in accordance with longstanding American values.

I will be glad to explain that amendment more if anyone wants. In the meantime, I know the Senator from Alabama is waiting.

I yield back the remainder of my time on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent we return at this time to amendment No. 1557, according to the previous unanimous consent agreement.

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

Madam President, as we all know, last night the President of the United States announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. The President noted in his remarks that one of the most consequential decisions a President makes is his nomination of a Justice to our Nation's highest Court. By nominating Judge Roberts, I believe the President has met the challenge. I commend him for choosing a thoroughly accomplished jurist and attorney to rise to this country's highest Court.

I point out that the selection process the White House and the President went through was thorough and, indeed, viewed as satisfactory--in fact, praised significantly by Members on both sides of the aisle. The President and his staff consulted with more than 70 Members of the Senate. The President reviewed the credentials of many well-qualified candidates, and the President also met with a number of potential nominees.

I believe the consultation part of the advise and consent process we go through was more than met by the President and his staff. The process has resulted in a nominee who truly stands on his achievement.

Presidents can and sometimes have nominated Justices for political reasons alone. However, this President has done something truly praiseworthy in nominating Judge Roberts. He focused on the merits and picked a distinguished attorney with a keen legal mind and an impressive record of accomplishment.

I think all of us are aware of Judge Roberts' academic background. We are aware of his clerking for Justice William Rehnquist, his service in the Department of Justice and, very importantly, being a member of the small group of lawyers who have practiced before the Supreme Court. In fact, Judge Roberts has appeared before and argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court some 39 times. The process has been followed and has resulted in an outstanding nominee.

There are questions about whether Judge Roberts will answer questions concerning specific issues. I think that issue was put to rest in the Breyer and Ginsburg nominations where, appropriately, they did not answer questions that would relate to cases that would be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

There may be some question about whether Judge Roberts is conservative. I think the President of the United States made it very clear in the last campaign, and I personally heard him state on numerous occasions, that he would appoint as a Supreme Court Justice, in the event of a vacancy, a person who strictly interpreted the Constitution of the United States. So just as in the previous administration President Clinton appointed judges such as Justices Breyer and Ginsburg who would be viewed by some as liberal, so I think it is entirely appropriate that Justice Roberts be viewed as ``conservative,'' if conservative means someone who strictly interprets the Constitution of the United States in making these incredibly important decisions that are made by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As is well known, I am a card-carrying member of the Gang of 14. One of the criteria of the Gang of 14 is that we would not filibuster a nominee to a court or the Supreme Court unless it was under ``extraordinary circumstances.'' I do not speak for the other Members. Each of those Members speaks for himself or herself. I do believe--at least in my opinion, I am convinced--that even though various Members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle may oppose and vote against Justice Roberts' nomination, and perhaps for well-founded reasons, that by no means, by any stretch of the imagination, would Justice Roberts, because of his credentials, because of his service, because of his extraordinary qualifications, meet the extraordinary circumstances criteria.

Again, I only speak for myself, but having been in on those negotiations about extraordinary circumstances for hundreds of hours, I believe Judge Roberts deserves an up-or-down vote, and I hope the other members of that group would also agree with me.

So I think this is a good day for America. We start a process which we should complete by the first week in October so that Justice Roberts can sit in the fall session of the U.S. Supreme Court. I think many of us watching him on television last night as he stated his profound appreciation for the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in our constitutional democracy, as well as his deep regard for the Court as an institution--this is without a doubt a man who is not only fit to face the magnitude of the task before him but who has the temperament and the judgment to understand the seriousness of his possible service as a member of our Nation's highest Court.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the, Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005.

The following is an overview of the bill, title by title, which is followed by a discussion of the reasons for the measure.

Title I: Resolution of historical accounting claims in Cobell v. Norton

Title I of the bill would provide for a lump sum settlement of the claims for an historical accounting that have been asserted in the case of Cobell v. Norton. The section would establish a Settlement Fund which would be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury and a Special Master. The total amount of the fund is left blank in this introduced version of the bill. The Committee on Indian Affairs will hold a hearing on this soon and have further discussions with the parties, hopefully to reach a consensus number for the settlement. The settlement fund would be distributed to individual Indians using two formulas: part of the fund would be distributed among all claimants equally, and part would be distributed under a formula that allocates funds in accordance with a through-put analysis--account holders with high volume accounts would receive more than those with low volume accounts. A portion of the fund would be held in reserve for payment of attorneys fees at an hourly rate, for administration of the fund and for claimants who successfully challenge their distribution in court. If any of the reserved funds remain unused, they are to be distributed to the claimants under the formula.

Title II: Indian Trust Asset Management Policy Review Commission

Title II of the bill establishes and sets forth the duties, responsibilities, and authority of a 12-member Indian Trust Asset Management Review Commission. The Commission would have two principal areas of responsibility: 1. Reviewing all current trust resource management laws, (including regulations), and the Secretary of Interior's trust resource management practices, and 2. Following that review, preparing a report to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Committee on Resources and the Secretary of Interior containing the Commission's recommendations for improving the management of those assets.

Title III: Indian Trust Resource Management Demonstration Project

Title III of the bill establishes an eight-year Indian Trust Resource Management Demonstration Project. The demonstration project would initially be open to all Indian tribes participating in section 131 of the Fiscal Year 2005 Interior Appropriations Act and an additional 30 Indian tribes that submit applications to the Secretary. Participating tribes would negotiate a ``trust resource management plan'' with the Secretary, which would remain in effect for the full duration of the demonstration project but would be subject to modification or termination annually. A participating tribe would be allowed to negotiate with the Department of Interior as to how the trust asset management budget for the reservation would be prioritized. Self- governance tribes participating in the demonstration project would also be permitted to develop their own ``customized'' trust asset management systems and practices. Trust assets subject to the plan would have to be managed in accordance with 1. The Federal trust responsibility and 2. Certain basic standards set forth in the section. The trust asset management plan itself would not create, diminish or increase

the liability of either the United States or the Indian tribe. The Indian tribe would have the right to terminate the plan by giving the Secretary notice, but termination would not be effective until the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Title IV: Fractional Interest Purchase and Consolidation Program

Title IV of the bill would be an amendment to Section 213 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 USC 2212). As currently written, Section 213 of ILCA authorizes the Secretary to purchase fractional interests in land in accordance with certain requirements. One problem with this program is that the fractional interests are so small that an offer of fair market value is such a small amount of money that there is little incentive to sell. Accordingly, the amendment would be a new subsection to ILCA Section 213 that would authorize the Secretary to offer more than fair market value for fractional interests in tracts of land that have 20 or more trust or restricted fractional interests--the offer would be fair market value PLUS an additional amount of at least $100 but not more than $350.

Also, this title would add another new subsection to ILCA section 213 that would authorize the Secretary to offer, along with an offer to purchase any interest or interests under section 213, an additional amount of money to settle any and all mismanagement claims against the United States that the interest owner may have in connection with the tract of land of which the fractional interest is a part. The interest owner would have the option of selling his or her interest to the Secretary with or without a settlement of mismanagement claims, i.e., the settlement of mismanagement claims could not be made a mandatory condition of the sale of the interest.

Also included as part of this title is a provision dealing with tracts of extremely fractionated land--specifically, tracts of land that consist of 200 or more fractional trust interests. If the Secretary determines that a tract is owned by 200 or more individuals, she is authorized to make the offer (not less than four times fair market value) via certified mail to each and every trust interest owner in the tract. The offer would include a notice that says they have 90 days to reject the offer or it will be deemed to have been accepted. It would include a pre-addressed (back to the Secretary) postage-paid ``notice of rejection'' form that the offeree may use to reject the offer. If they fail to mail the form back in time, they will be given another notice stating that they may withdraw the offer by mailing a postage pre-paid ``notice of withdrawal'' form back to the Secretary within 30 days. If They fail to do that in time, the offer is deemed to be accepted.

Title V: Restructuring the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the

Special Trustee

This title of the bill would reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians under a new office within the Department of Interior, an Under Secretary for Indian Affairs. The title provides that the Under Secretary has responsibility for the administration of all Indian trust and non-trust matters, including, after a transition period ending on December 31, 2008, matters currently within the scope of authority of the Special Trustee for American Indians under the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 USC 4041 et seq.). The Under Secretary would oversee a new Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight, but the Special Trustee would continue performing his duties under the 1994 Act until December 31, 2008, at which time the OST would be abolished.

Title VI: Annual Audit of Indian Trust Funds by the Government

Accountability Office

Title VI of the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to contract for an annual audit of all funds held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian Tribe or an individual Indian. The audit would be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles and the Single Audit Act. Copies of each audit report must be submitted to the Secretary of Interior, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and the House Committee on Resources.

Reasons for the bill: the performance of the United States over the past 125 years in its capacity as trustee and manager of Indian trust and restricted lands is not something to be proud of. The policy of allotting Indian tribal lands, which was made the general Federal Indian policy in the 1880s, was one of several federal ``experiments'' in Indian matters that have had regrettable results both for Native Americans and for the Government. This policy of the 19th Century has come back to haunt us now in the form of fractionated ownership of allotted lands--where some parcels of land are owned by hundreds and in some cases over a thousand different Indian owners. This fractionation of ownership has led to a proliferation of individual Indian money accounts ``IIM accounts,'' now numbering in the hundreds of thousands, all of which the Federal Government has a trust obligation to track and manage.

The staggering number of IIM accounts--along with decades of mismanagement on the part of Government officials--contributed to the conditions that led to the filing of the Federal class action here in the District of Columbia known as Cobell v. Norton. A lot has happened in that litigation since it was filed 9 years ago, much of it reported in newspapers across the country, but I think it is fair to say that one thing the case has shown is that the United States has not lived up to its duty as a fiduciary to the thousands of Indian beneficiaries of IIM accounts.

The principal objectives of the Cobell case are to obtain a complete historical accounting of IIM accounts and to reform the trust itself. The Government has been ordered to perform a complete, detailed accounting of transactions relating to IIM accounts and to submit and implement a plan to reform the trust. In hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, officials from the Department of Interior have stated that the cost of doing the accounting may run in to multiple billions of dollars, and representatives of the plaintiffs in the case as well as the GAO, have stated that much of this accounting cannot be done due to missing or destroyed records, information, or data relating to the IIM accounts.

The bill I introduce today would provide a resolution of the class action relating to an historical accounting and would also bring a number of important changes to the Indian trust asset management system. In lieu of an accounting, the bill would create a settlement fund and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a formula for distributing the fund to the beneficial owners of IIM accounts in full settlement for losses, errors, and unpaid interest in their IIM accounts. Several other aspects of the bill are included for the purpose of reforming the Indian trust management system. For example, the bill would create a special commission charged with the responsibility of examining current Indian trust management laws, regulations and practices and reporting back to the authorizing committees of jurisdiction in the Senate and House with recommended revisions of these laws, regulations and practices. It would also restructure the Bureau of Indian Affairs under an Under Secretary For Indian Affairs, phasing out the Office of the Special Trustee whose responsibilities would be transferred to the Under Secretary after December 31, 2008.

I would like to thank the National Congress of American Indians, the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, representatives of the plaintiffs as well as many other stakeholders for their considerable and helpful input in developing this legislation. The bill does not include everything that they requested, and they may have issues with certain aspects of the bill as it is now written. That said, the bill is offered as a starting point for discussion. I do not think that there is any provision in the bill that is immutable, closed to debate or negotiation. Hopefully the stakeholders will remain engaged and continue to provide me with information and suggestions to make it a better bill, a bill that brings substantial improvements to the administration and management of Indian trust assets.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the, Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005.

The following is an overview of the bill, title by title, which is followed by a discussion of the reasons for the measure.

Title I: Resolution of historical accounting claims in Cobell v. Norton

Title I of the bill would provide for a lump sum settlement of the claims for an historical accounting that have been asserted in the case of Cobell v. Norton. The section would establish a Settlement Fund which would be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury and a Special Master. The total amount of the fund is left blank in this introduced version of the bill. The Committee on Indian Affairs will hold a hearing on this soon and have further discussions with the parties, hopefully to reach a consensus number for the settlement. The settlement fund would be distributed to individual Indians using two formulas: part of the fund would be distributed among all claimants equally, and part would be distributed under a formula that allocates funds in accordance with a through-put analysis--account holders with high volume accounts would receive more than those with low volume accounts. A portion of the fund would be held in reserve for payment of attorneys fees at an hourly rate, for administration of the fund and for claimants who successfully challenge their distribution in court. If any of the reserved funds remain unused, they are to be distributed to the claimants under the formula.

Title II: Indian Trust Asset Management Policy Review Commission

Title II of the bill establishes and sets forth the duties, responsibilities, and authority of a 12-member Indian Trust Asset Management Review Commission. The Commission would have two principal areas of responsibility: 1. Reviewing all current trust resource management laws, (including regulations), and the Secretary of Interior's trust resource management practices, and 2. Following that review, preparing a report to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Committee on Resources and the Secretary of Interior containing the Commission's recommendations for improving the management of those assets.

Title III: Indian Trust Resource Management Demonstration Project

Title III of the bill establishes an eight-year Indian Trust Resource Management Demonstration Project. The demonstration project would initially be open to all Indian tribes participating in section 131 of the Fiscal Year 2005 Interior Appropriations Act and an additional 30 Indian tribes that submit applications to the Secretary. Participating tribes would negotiate a ``trust resource management plan'' with the Secretary, which would remain in effect for the full duration of the demonstration project but would be subject to modification or termination annually. A participating tribe would be allowed to negotiate with the Department of Interior as to how the trust asset management budget for the reservation would be prioritized. Self- governance tribes participating in the demonstration project would also be permitted to develop their own ``customized'' trust asset management systems and practices. Trust assets subject to the plan would have to be managed in accordance with 1. The Federal trust responsibility and 2. Certain basic standards set forth in the section. The trust asset management plan itself would not create, diminish or increase

the liability of either the United States or the Indian tribe. The Indian tribe would have the right to terminate the plan by giving the Secretary notice, but termination would not be effective until the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Title IV: Fractional Interest Purchase and Consolidation Program

Title IV of the bill would be an amendment to Section 213 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 USC 2212). As currently written, Section 213 of ILCA authorizes the Secretary to purchase fractional interests in land in accordance with certain requirements. One problem with this program is that the fractional interests are so small that an offer of fair market value is such a small amount of money that there is little incentive to sell. Accordingly, the amendment would be a new subsection to ILCA Section 213 that would authorize the Secretary to offer more than fair market value for fractional interests in tracts of land that have 20 or more trust or restricted fractional interests--the offer would be fair market value PLUS an additional amount of at least $100 but not more than $350.

Also, this title would add another new subsection to ILCA section 213 that would authorize the Secretary to offer, along with an offer to purchase any interest or interests under section 213, an additional amount of money to settle any and all mismanagement claims against the United States that the interest owner may have in connection with the tract of land of which the fractional interest is a part. The interest owner would have the option of selling his or her interest to the Secretary with or without a settlement of mismanagement claims, i.e., the settlement of mismanagement claims could not be made a mandatory condition of the sale of the interest.

Also included as part of this title is a provision dealing with tracts of extremely fractionated land--specifically, tracts of land that consist of 200 or more fractional trust interests. If the Secretary determines that a tract is owned by 200 or more individuals, she is authorized to make the offer (not less than four times fair market value) via certified mail to each and every trust interest owner in the tract. The offer would include a notice that says they have 90 days to reject the offer or it will be deemed to have been accepted. It would include a pre-addressed (back to the Secretary) postage-paid ``notice of rejection'' form that the offeree may use to reject the offer. If they fail to mail the form back in time, they will be given another notice stating that they may withdraw the offer by mailing a postage pre-paid ``notice of withdrawal'' form back to the Secretary within 30 days. If They fail to do that in time, the offer is deemed to be accepted.

Title V: Restructuring the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the

Special Trustee

This title of the bill would reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians under a new office within the Department of Interior, an Under Secretary for Indian Affairs. The title provides that the Under Secretary has responsibility for the administration of all Indian trust and non-trust matters, including, after a transition period ending on December 31, 2008, matters currently within the scope of authority of the Special Trustee for American Indians under the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 USC 4041 et seq.). The Under Secretary would oversee a new Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight, but the Special Trustee would continue performing his duties under the 1994 Act until December 31, 2008, at which time the OST would be abolished.

Title VI: Annual Audit of Indian Trust Funds by the Government

Accountability Office

Title VI of the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to contract for an annual audit of all funds held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian Tribe or an individual Indian. The audit would be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles and the Single Audit Act. Copies of each audit report must be submitted to the Secretary of Interior, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and the House Committee on Resources.

Reasons for the bill: the performance of the United States over the past 125 years in its capacity as trustee and manager of Indian trust and restricted lands is not something to be proud of. The policy of allotting Indian tribal lands, which was made the general Federal Indian policy in the 1880s, was one of several federal ``experiments'' in Indian matters that have had regrettable results both for Native Americans and for the Government. This policy of the 19th Century has come back to haunt us now in the form of fractionated ownership of allotted lands--where some parcels of land are owned by hundreds and in some cases over a thousand different Indian owners. This fractionation of ownership has led to a proliferation of individual Indian money accounts ``IIM accounts,'' now numbering in the hundreds of thousands, all of which the Federal Government has a trust obligation to track and manage.

The staggering number of IIM accounts--along with decades of mismanagement on the part of Government officials--contributed to the conditions that led to the filing of the Federal class action here in the District of Columbia known as Cobell v. Norton. A lot has happened in that litigation since it was filed 9 years ago, much of it reported in newspapers across the country, but I think it is fair to say that one thing the case has shown is that the United States has not lived up to its duty as a fiduciary to the thousands of Indian beneficiaries of IIM accounts.

The principal objectives of the Cobell case are to obtain a complete historical accounting of IIM accounts and to reform the trust itself. The Government has been ordered to perform a complete, detailed accounting of transactions relating to IIM accounts and to submit and implement a plan to reform the trust. In hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, officials from the Department of Interior have stated that the cost of doing the accounting may run in to multiple billions of dollars, and representatives of the plaintiffs in the case as well as the GAO, have stated that much of this accounting cannot be done due to missing or destroyed records, information, or data relating to the IIM accounts.

The bill I introduce today would provide a resolution of the class action relating to an historical accounting and would also bring a number of important changes to the Indian trust asset management system. In lieu of an accounting, the bill would create a settlement fund and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a formula for distributing the fund to the beneficial owners of IIM accounts in full settlement for losses, errors, and unpaid interest in their IIM accounts. Several other aspects of the bill are included for the purpose of reforming the Indian trust management system. For example, the bill would create a special commission charged with the responsibility of examining current Indian trust management laws, regulations and practices and reporting back to the authorizing committees of jurisdiction in the Senate and House with recommended revisions of these laws, regulations and practices. It would also restructure the Bureau of Indian Affairs under an Under Secretary For Indian Affairs, phasing out the Office of the Special Trustee whose responsibilities would be transferred to the Under Secretary after December 31, 2008.

I would like to thank the National Congress of American Indians, the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, representatives of the plaintiffs as well as many other stakeholders for their considerable and helpful input in developing this legislation. The bill does not include everything that they requested, and they may have issues with certain aspects of the bill as it is now written. That said, the bill is offered as a starting point for discussion. I do not think that there is any provision in the bill that is immutable, closed to debate or negotiation. Hopefully the stakeholders will remain engaged and continue to provide me with information and suggestions to make it a better bill, a bill that brings substantial improvements to the administration and management of Indian trust assets.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I thank Senators McConnell and Feinstein for their leadership in renewing the sanctions contained in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation.

As we renew the sanctions, I note with sadness that the situation inside Burma grows ever dimmer. The military junta in that country controls the population through a campaign of violence and terror, and the lack of freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese regime has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers, and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists remain in prison, including elected members of Parliament, and last month the courageous woman Aung San Suu Kyi celebrated her 60th birthday in captivity. Her resolve in the face of tyranny inspires me and I believe every individual who holds democracy dear. Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents: peace, freedom, and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run the country have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shine brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom and those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people.

I know my friend from Kentucky has been very involved in this issue. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Kentucky and I engage in a brief colloquy.

I again thank my friend and colleague from Kentucky for his commitment to democracy and freedom in Burma in general and his continuing advocacy on behalf of this Nobel Prize winner and truly great citizen of the world.

One of the issues I would like to discuss with the Senator from Kentucky is the fact that a few years ago, Burma was allowed into ASEAN on the premise that there would be some kind of progress made and by being part of this organization they would seek some kind of legitimacy.

Now, apparently, next year ASEAN is scheduled to meet in Burma. I wondered about the Senator's thoughts about that. Maybe we should give that some more attention as the time approaches.

I thank my friend for his continued sponsorship for and renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I believe it has had an effect inside Burma. I do believe the people who are in prisons and mistreated, as well as San Suu Kyi herself, are aware of our efforts on their behalf.

I thank my friend from Kentucky for his continued efforts on behalf of these people. I believe we should continue to ask that one day they will achieve their freedom--not if, but when. I think the Senator's efforts and our passage of this legislation will help get them there. I look forward to exploring other options and ways we can put continued pressure on this bunch of thugs to at least allow this brave woman a chance to live some semblance of a normal life. She certainly deserves it.

Mr. President, I know my friend from Kentucky and the Senator from California and all Members will renew our assurance to the people of Burma and their brave leader that we will not rest and we will not stop until they achieve freedom and democracy, which is a God- given right.

I thank my colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. President, I support passage of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This important legislation funds the international development and assistance portion of our national budget and with its passage, we acknowledge the vital nature of these programs. Supporting foreign aid, military assistance, development funds, democracy promotion activities and other programs should be a matter of course--something that America does as part of its responsibilities as the global superpower.

This year's bill provides $31.8 billion to carry out our many fore operations programs. I commend Senator McConnell, chairman of the foreign operations subcommittee, and Senator Leahy, ranking member of the subcommittee, on developing an appropriations measure that is generally light on pork. There are, nevertheless, dozens of earmarks, especially in the report language, including a few that simply leave me scratching my head. I am a longstanding champion of robust funding of America's international affairs budget. But I ask, whether that budget should include an earmark of half a million dollars for the Neotropical Raptor Center in Panama. I wonder if the birds of prey the center seeks to protect have instead descended on our appropriations bill. Likewise, the report includes a $2 million earmark for ``activities to protect the orangutan from extinction'' and directs that some of these funds go to the Orangutan Foundation.

I note with regret that, once again, the Senate has failed to pass an authorization bill prior to considering this legislation. Again, the responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be distinct. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has the responsibility for laying out a blueprint for the policies and funding levels of USAID and the Department of State and their programs. I hope that the Senate will finish consideration of the State Department authorization bill, so that the Senate will have the benefit of the Foreign Relations Committee's recommendations. We should not continue to fund unauthorized programs and risk marginalizing our authorizing committees.

With that said, most of the provisions in the bill under consideration serve America's interests and values in powerful ways. Let me comment on just one group. This year's version of the Foreign Operations bill states that $495 million of our annual aid to Egypt ``shall be provided with the understanding that Egypt will undertake significant economic political reforms which are additional to those which were undertaken in previous fiscal years.'' The bill also withholds $227 million in economic reform assistance until the Secretary of State determines that the Government of Egypt has met its 2005 economic reform commitments--commitments it made to the United States. Finally, the bill directs that nongovernmental organizations providing democracy and governance assistance shall not be subject to prior approval by Government of Egypt. I believe that we should have conditioned aid to Egypt in this way for years, and I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for these bold steps. The Government of Egypt has, for too long, gotten a free pass from the United States. We are grateful for its friendship with the U.S. and its peace agreement with Israel, but its lack of real reform offends the universal values we hold dear and poses a security threat to the United States.

I would also like to note that the report language contains words of support for the ADVANCE Democracy Act. Working with Senator Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the ADVANCE Democracy Act, I will continue work toward passage of that bill this year, and I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their support. I hope that we can work together to move the ADVANCE bill through the Senate in the near future.

I must once again convey my gratitude to the members of the subcommittee. Their attention and commitment to supporting vital programs has provided a sound bill with which to fund our foreign operations for the coming fiscal year.

Mr. President, before I use my minute, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl and Senator Brownback be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which we passed 7 months ago, authorized 8,000 new detention beds. This bill provides for about a

quarter of that. The Border Patrol now releases 90 percent of the people they catch through voluntary repatriation--90 percent. My friends, anybody who comes into the United States of America across our southern border today and is from a country other than Mexico, there is a 95-percent chance they will continue their journey to wherever they want to go. We don't have enough detention facilities. We don't have enough beds.

Mr. President, here is a story:

Twenty Brazilians glided across the Rio Grande in rubber

rafts propelled by Mexican smugglers who leaned forward and

breast-stroked through the gentle current.

Once on the U.S. side, the Brazilians scrambled ashore and

started looking for the Border Patrol. Their quick and well-

rehearsed surrender was part of a growing trend that is

demoralizing the Border Patrol and beckoning a rising number

of illegal immigrants from countries beyond Mexico.

``We used to chase them; now they're chasing us,'' Border

Patrol Agent Gus Balderas said as he frisked the Brazilians.

Mr. President, we have to provide sufficient facilities.

I ask my colleagues to approve this much needed legislation.

Reserving the right to object.

I object.

I object.

I have to see the amendment. I object.

Mr. President, may I be recognized?

I tell my colleagues we are about to have final passage, and they are trying to run several amendments through I have haven't seen. I object to it. I would like to see the amendments. I think I have that right as a Member of this body. So I object to any amendment that I have not seen.

I am looking at them now.

I do not object to 1110 now that I have seen it.

I haven't seen the other two.

Mr. President, before discussing the Homeland Security appropriations bill, I would like to take a moment to express my deepest condolences to our British friends as they deal with the aftermath of the terrorist bombings in London. Once again the world has seen the stark contrast between brutal terrorism, with its lust for violence, and liberal democracy, with its love for freedom. The British people knew, after September 11, 2001, that there could be no accommodation with this brand of fanaticism, and under the visionary leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair, Britain stood with America in our time of need. Now, in Britain's time of need, we stand with our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic. Our bond, always strong, is even firmer.

I believe I can speak for many Americans when I say that I felt the attack in London as if it were an attack on the United States; the hurt of our British friends is like that of our own countrymen. The relationship between American and the United Kingdom is unlike any other, and the world is better off for it. At this tragic time, all people in that great country must know that America is with them, as allies, as friends, as brothers and sisters. They are not alone, for they must know that they remain in our hearts, in our minds, and in our prayers, as we have experienced a similar sense of loss and pain on September 11, 2001. Together we will not allow terrorists to destroy the way of life that our two great nations have endeavored over centuries to build.

The four bombings in London have now lead many of us to take a second look at the Homeland Security appropriations bill to ensure that we are adequately securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. In addition to appropriating funds, however, we must also act on authorizing measures to promote the security of our nation's transportation system. Earlier this week, I introduced the Rail Security Act of 2005, which is nearly identical to legislation passed unanimously by the Senate last year. I hope that the bombings in Madrid and London will spur this Congress to take needed action and pass this important authorizing legislation.

I commend the chairman and subcommittee chairman, and the ranking members, on their efforts to produce a funding measure that best meets our Nation's security objectives. For the third consecutive year, the committee has reported out a Homeland Security bill with minimal earmarks. As evidenced by the recent bombings in London, this bill is too important to the security of the American people to be bogged down with unreasonable earmarks and no essential policy changes and directives.

The Department of Homeland Security plays a crucial role in our Nation's defense, particularly during these uncertain times as our country continues to be engaged in fighting a war against terror. We must be vigilant in ensuring that the Department has the right tools to protect our Nation's air space, borders, ports of entry, and travel infrastructure. We also must ensure that our first responders are adequately funded to protect citizens in the event of a national emergency. At the same time, resources are limited and this bill recognizes that and seeks to ensure that the Department optimizes all received funds.

The Department of Homeland Security's most vital function is protecting our Nation's borders. The committee's bill does provide for an increased focus on border security efforts and I commend them for their attention to these critical funding needs. However, more remains to be done. While I strongly believe this bill needs to provide for the level of border patrol agents and detention beds as we authorized in the Intelligence Reform Act just 7 months ago, our amendments on these critical needs were unsuccessful.

Another area of concern is the committee's decision to not fund the President's request for accelerated deployment of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, US VISIT, Program, which was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Although US VISIT has much room for improvement, funding to expedite the full implementation of the program will be essential to our ability to adequately monitor the flow of individuals into and out of our country. I hope that this issue will be carefully reconsidered as this measure continues through the legislative process.

As encouraged as I am to see additional resources directed to the border, enforcement alone will never fully secure our border. Over the last 12 years, the Federal Government has tripled spending on technology and infrastructure to secure the border and tripled the number of border patrol personnel. Yet during that same time, illegal immigration is estimated to have doubled. The lesson here is important: as long as there is a need for workers in this country that goes unmet by the domestic workforce, and as long as there are workers in other countries willing to risk their lives for the opportunity to take those jobs, they will find a way in.

The simple fact is this: our Nation's borders are extremely porous. For the last several years the volatile conditions at our Nation's southwestern border have grown unsustainable. The cost of our broken immigration system is increasingly borne by local communities and State governments through uncompensated health care, unreimbursed law enforcement costs, environmental degradation, and an increased sense of lawlessness. As these conditions have worsened, several Members of this body, including myself, have put forth proposals to reform our Nation's immigration laws and improve security along the border and in the interior. Immigration reform is one of the most critical issues facing our Nation today, and I hope the Senate will soon turn to this issue. Funding for additional manpower and technology improvements must continue, but our borders will never be fully secure without comprehensive immigration reform.

I support provisions in the bill and accompanying report which encourage the Department, specifically the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and ICE, to invest in improved technology. The report finds that the Department, ``should not be operating on stovepipped, disconnected, inherited information technology systems,'' but rather the Department should be equipped with the best technology systems available in order to reduce reliance on personnel and improve security. In particular, I am encouraged to

see funding for the deployment of new equipment and technology to the border, including to Arizona, which in recent years has become a leading gateway for illegal immigration.

Additionally, I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has encouraged the TSA to consistently implement a risk management approach to decisionmaking to prioritize security improvements as recommended by the General Accountability Office earlier this year. The GAO report stated that ``TSA has not consistently implemented a risk management approach or conducted the systematic analysis needed to inform its decision-making processes and to prioritize security improvements . . . a risk management approach can help inform decision makers in allocating finite resources to the areas of greatest need.''

Although I find a great deal to support in this bill, I would be remiss if I did not point out the serious unrequested spending and the few earmarks contained in this bill and the report. There is over $2 billion in unauthorized and unrequested spending in the bill and the report. Examples include: $47 million above the President's request for the acquisition and maintenance of facilities for the Federal law enforcement and training centers; $68 million for two maritime patrol aircraft under the Coast Guard's integrated deepwater system; $65 million to fund the Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act; and $59 million for critical infrastructure outreach and partnerships. Since such spending was not requested or isn't authorized, I have no way of knowing if such expenditures are needed. Needless expenditures are unacceptable, particularly while our country is running a deficit of $368 billion this year and a 10-year projected deficit of $1.35 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. When are we going to tighten the belt? While I concede that it is very difficult to reduce spending while attempting to protect the Nation's homeland, I can only hope that Congress's belt tightens elsewhere.

Examples of earmarks and directive language include: language limiting overtime pay to $35,000 for Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, $55 million for the completion of the Tucson tactical infrastructure around the border and $15 million for the Coast Guard's bridge alteration program. Although many of these are important programs and worthy of funding, they were not specifically authorized by Congress and not requested by the President, and they should be.

Lastly, I am also disappointed that the bill once again this year contains a Departmentwide ``Buy America'' requirement, and specific language directing the Secret Service to purchase American-made motorcycles. I firmly object to all ``Buy America'' restrictions, as they represent gross examples of protectionist trade policy. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose such policies because free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations, which then improves the security of our Nation. Furthermore, as a fiscal conservative, I want to ensure our Government gets the best deal for taxpayers and with a ``Buy American'' restriction that cannot be guaranteed. Such provisions cost the Department of Defense over $5.5 billion each year and I am fearful that we will see the same unnecessary expense arise at the Department of Homeland Security, a new agency.

Once again, I thank the appropriators for their diligence in passing a relatively clean Homeland Security appropriations bill devoid of numerous earmarks. While much work remains to be done to secure our homeland, including comprehensive immigration reform and further action on 9/11 Commission recommendations, specifically more spectrum for first responders, we can take another important step by passing this legislation and providing the Department with adequate resources to protect our Nation's air space, borders, ports of entry, and travel infrastructure.

amendment no. 1161

Mr. President, I send three modifications of my amendments Nos. 1171, No. 1150, and No. 1151, to the desk and ask unanimous consent those modifications be in order.

Mr. President, I have now three pending amendments that have been modified, is that correct?

Mr. President, I believe they are not pending.

Yes. That is fine. The modifications to the filed amendments have been agreed to.

I would like to make a statement about rail security legislation and then, after conversations with Senator Gregg, bring up an amendment on UAVs, which is filed, and then have two additional amendments pending, because I am afraid I may need up-or-down votes.

I am pleased the Senate continues to make progress on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. It is important that we adequately fund this Department and its essential programs which are critical to our Nation's efforts to secure our homeland as we fight the war on terrorism.

In addition to this funding measure, legislation authorizing security efforts is equally important. I am particularly concerned about an authorizing bill the Senate passed by unanimous consent in the 108th Congress, but which has not yet been enacted. Earlier this week I introduced the Rail Security Act of 2005, legislation that is nearly identical to the rail security bill that passed the Senate last year, as I say, unanimously. I sincerely hope we once again pass this important legislation and, given current events, the sooner we act, the better. Rail security must be made a top priority in this Congress.

I would like to mention the Rail Security Act we passed in the 108th Congress was the product of numerous hearings in the Commerce Committee, with expert witnesses and with administration support. So that is why I believe it should have relatively little controversy associated with it.

We are all deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life caused by the terrorist attacks in London last week. Those instances are a painful reminder of the cruel nature of our enemies in this war and of what we must do to fight and win against those who wish to eradicate our way of life. I have said on many occasions that we cannot just play defense in this war, that instead we must take the fight to the enemy. Still, we must do what is possible to protect Americans at home. The London bombings and the attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system last year demonstrate all too vividly the continuing need for this legislation.

We have taken considerable action to address aviation security and devoted significant resources to that mode. I think all would agree aviation is safer now than before 9/11. However, since the terrorist attacks nearly 4 years ago, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security. Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks, this despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has identified as potential terrorist targets the freight and rail passenger networks, which are critical to the Nation's transportation system and national defense.

The 9/11 Commission, in its report on the facts and circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks, called for improved security in all modes of transportation, noting that ``terrorists may turn their attention to other modes.''

The Rail Security Act would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion for rail security. More than half of this funding would be authorized to complete tunnel safety and security improvements at New York's Penn Station, which is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and inner city passengers each workday. The legislation would also establish a grant program authorized at $350 million to encourage security enhancements by the freight railroads, Amtrak shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with security responsibility for passenger stations not owned by Amtrak.

Further, DHS would be required to complete a vulnerability assessment of the rail network to terrorist attack, and make recommendations to Congress for addressing security weaknesses. Importantly, to protect the taxpayers' interests, all Amtrak authorizations would be managed by the Department of Transportation through formal grant agreements.

We face a dedicated, focused, intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find our weaknesses and move against them. We have seen the vulnerability of rail to terrorism in other countries and the devastating consequences of such an attack. It is essential we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack.

Also, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, be listed as a cosponsor of the Rail Security Act.

I thank the Senator for his cosponsorship of this legislation, particularly given that Mr. Biden travels daily on the rails, back and forth to his home in Delaware.

I trust the Senate will move quickly to once again pass this essential legislation. We owe at least that much to the American people as we continue our struggle against an enemy that wants nothing less than to destroy everything we stand for and believe in.

Amendment No. 1151, As Modified

I ask unanimous consent to set aside pending legislation and take up amendment 1151 as modified, UAVs at the southwestern border.

Mr. President, despite the worthy efforts that have been made to secure our homeland, much remains to be done. I, for one, do not believe we can ever expect to fully secure our Nation until we enact comprehensive immigration reform that includes strong and effective enforcement requirements. We cannot accomplish that in this pending bill, but in the meantime we can still take additional measures to better secure our border.

I commend the chairman, subcommittee chairman, and the ranking members for putting forward an appropriations bill that includes a number of sound border security funding provisions. One area I would like to see strengthened, as is proposed by this amendment, is to ensure we are more fully monitoring the southwestern border where most of the illegal crossing and needless deaths occur annually.

Let me cite a few of the more alarming statistics about what is going on in the southwestern border region. Over 300 people died in the desert last year trying to cross the border. About 200 of those deaths occurred in the Arizona desert. The Border Patrol is currently apprehending approximately 1,300 undocumented immigrants a day in Arizona. This number is expected to rise. An estimated 3,000 people enter the United States illegally from Mexico every single day. Last year, 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol and more than half of those were in the State of Arizona. The Border Patrol releases more than 90 percent of the people they catch through voluntary repatriation, because the system is simply overwhelmed.

I want to repeat that, Mr. President. Anybody who has visited our border and seen those wonderful men and women who serve there in the Border Patrol and Immigration will agree they are simply overwhelmed.

We have our work cut out for us. We need more manpower and better focused technology. This legislation provides some needed funding for both, but I hope by the time it passes the Senate that we redirect some of the $31.8 billion in this bill to allow us to fulfill a commitment we made just 7 months ago as part of the intelligence reform legislation. In that law we authorize for the coming year 2,000 more Border Patrol agents, twice as many as would be provided for in the underlying bill, and 8,000 detention beds, 5,790 more than provided for in the bill before us.

I filed amendments to fulfill these authorized levels and would like to work with the bill managers to address these important security issues.

Another area of particular concern along the southwestern border, particularly to Arizonans, since our State is now the leading gateway to illegal entry, is the Federal Government's use of technologies that are already available to strengthen our security efforts.

Manpower alone is not the answer when we are dealing with a 6,000- mile border area. The February grounding of the unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, in southern Arizona sent the absolute wrong message to those seeking to illegally enter our country. They are a helpful and needed deterrent to illegal entry and have been very useful in helping to monitor and better secure our southern border. Halting this program even temporarily needlessly jeopardizes our citizens and Nation.

The temperature today on the border between Arizona and Mexico is probably, in the middle of the day, 120 degrees. It is awfully hard on Border Patrol people, and there is no way we can patrol these hundreds of miles of border simply with ground vehicles. UAVs have proved extremely effective in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the world. Clearly it would have tremendous utility in monitoring what is happening along our borders, not only to prevent illegal crossings but also, once those crossings are made, to track down and arrest those who are doing so. And as is well known, not everyone who is crossing the border is simply coming for a job. We have significant drug trafficking, and the Director of the FBI has stated that we are apprehending more and more citizens of ``countries of interest'' that are crossing our borders as well.

In our efforts to counter terrorism and promote national security, it is essential that we use all appropriate assets available to ensure the safety of our citizens and the security of our borders. As we learned through extensive military operations, UAVs have proven to be a highly effective aerial surveillance system that can be used as a force multiplier in coordination with other air and ground surveillance technologies. Of course, we should work to ensure the most effective UAV technologies are employed over the border, but it is important that some form of UAV be deployed in the short term to augment ongoing enforcement efforts. Grounding the UAVs also creates a perception in an already volatile border region that the Federal Government is abandoning its responsibilities.

We are now into our fifth month with grounded UAVs at the southern border, and I find this inexcusable and unacceptable. A UAV program not only helps to deter illegal immigrants but also maximizes the effectiveness of our law enforcement agents on the ground.

I commend the bill managers for recognizing the need for UAVs and hope they can agree to support my amendment that will make clear to DHS that the funding provided in this bill is not to support grounded technologies but, rather, is provided to support a robust UAV program that best meets the area's security risks while recognizing the need for constant surveillance along the southwestern border.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure UAV surveillance at the Nation's borders and maximize our law enforcement efforts.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the managers of the bill would agree to this amendment by voice vote at the appropriate time, but I would clearly await the presence of the managers before proceeding.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1150 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, despite worthy efforts to secure our homeland, much remains to be done, and I do not believe we can expect to secure fully our Nation until we enact comprehensive immigration reform that includes strong and effective enforcement requirements.

I commend the chairman and subcommittee chairman and ranking members for putting forward an appropriations bill that includes a number of important border security funding provisions. Clearly, they do not have an easy job. And I know they have worked to fund critical homeland security needs.

One area that I strongly believe should be strengthened, however, concerns the number of Border Patrol agents as they play one of the most critical roles in securing our homeland.

To help my colleagues to understand the great need for more manpower, let me cite just a few of the more alarming statistics about what is going on in the southwestern border region. Over 300 people died last year; an estimated 3,000 people enter the United States from Mexico every day. A few weeks ago, 79 people were found in a Phoenix alley crammed into a commercial horse trailer. The heat was over 100 degrees, and they had been there for several days. Of the 79, 11 were children, including a 4-month-old baby. At the beginning of the summer, when the temperature in the desert rose unexpectedly, 12 people died crossing into Arizona in 1 weekend.

Mr. President, we have our work cut out for us. We need more manpower and better focused technology. This legislation provides some needed funding for both. But I hope that by the time it passes the Senate, we redirect some of the $31.8 billion in this bill to allow us to fulfill a commitment we made just 7 months ago as part of the intelligence reform legislation.

Mr. President, a dangerous state of lawlessness exists along the southwestern border, and it has become increasingly volatile. The Federal Government's inability to stem the illegal traffic flowing across the border has shifted substantial financial and social burdens to residents of the border region. Recent action by minutemen along the Arizona border provided the Nation with an image of the frustration felt by many Americans.

Border States are suffering from the immediate and downstream problems associated with illegal immigration. Our hospitals are burdened with enormous uncompensated costs, and so are our State and local law enforcement agencies. We simply need more manpower to protect the border in the near term. While I strongly believe that once we fix our broken immigration system, we will see the day that some of our border resources can be shifted to other priorities, until then Congress must have the will to take the action needed to reform our broken immigration system. We need to have a robust Border Patrol force hired, trained, and on the job.

While providing solid resources to state and local officials to ensure the readiness of our first responders is imperative, the men and women serving in the Border Patrol are literally on the front lines in the fight to keep the terrorists out of our country. CIA Director Muller has said that more and more people from ``countries of interest'' are looking at our southwest border as a possible point of entry into the

United States. Why shouldn't they. Hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of migrants who enter the United States illegally each year to work represent the perfect cover for potential terrorists. Of course, if others have offsets to suggest, that would be preferable. I am open to any and all options that will enable us to meet the full level of Border Patrol agents so desperately needed on the front lines.

Mr. President, I am aware that the managers are not in agreement with this amendment, and that is why I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1171 as modified.

Mr. President, the situation on our borders, as I have said, has reached a critical juncture. I have given the statistics. The Border Patrol releases more than 90 percent of the people they catch. I want to repeat that. The Border Patrol releases through voluntary repatriation more than 90 percent of the people they catch because the system is overwhelmed. That probably sounds unbelievable to most Americans. The unfortunate reality is that the Border Patrol simply cannot take into custody the vast number of people that are apprehended. Because of this, they must prioritize. Due to space limitations, our Federal agents rightly give a higher priority to aliens who represent potential criminal threats.

Mexican nationals who are apprehended are usually returned to Mexican Government officials, voluntarily taken back across the border, and, in the case of a recent pilot program, repatriated to the interior of Mexico with the hope they are less likely to risk crossing again.

However, foreign nationals from other countries often get off much easier. Because of the lack of detention space, the fact that their home countries are farther away, and limitations in our immigration laws, nationals from Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil, and a number of other countries are frequently apprehended by Federal officials, given a court summons to report to deportation proceedings, and released.

Mr. President, let me tell you that again. They are apprehended, they find out they are from Brazil, they say, OK, show up in court, show up in court inside the United States, and then they are released. How many of those do you think we ever see again?

The reality has become demoralizing to the men and women serving in the Border Patrol. Word about this loophole has quickly traveled back to Central and South American countries. Summonses to report to deportation proceedings are frequently called ``permisos'' or permission slips. Smugglers now take migrants as far as they can and tell them to approach the first Border Patrol agent they see and turn themselves in. After migrants obtain their permiso, they are then free to continue their journey to Chicago, New York, or wherever there is a job or a family member awaiting them.

One result of this loophole has been a dramatic increase in the number of Brazilians crossing the border illegally.

Fox News channel, Monday, July 11, 2005. ``Other Than Mexicans? Welcome to America.''

Los Angeles.--For many people around the world, the U.S.-

Mexico border is a doorway to opportunity--one that's

unlocked and wide open.

Brazilians, Chinese, Pakistanis and many others are joining

the tide of Mexicans who sneak across every day.

``OTMs include people from all over the world--South

America, the Middle East, the Caribbean,'' explained former

Immigration and Naturalization Service Special Agent Michael

W. Cutler, currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration

Studies. ``Anyone other than Mexican is an OTM.''

In 2001 5,251 ``OTMs'' were caught crossing over from

Mexico. Last year the number was more than 35,000.

In the first eight months of this fiscal year, it's up to

70,000 already--230 people a day--and they're only the ones

getting caught.

``The vulnerability of a porous border is a security

problem, and we always have to be concerned the real bad guys

will exploit these vulnerabilities,'' said Frank Sharry,

executive director of the National Immigration Forum.

Critics are concerned at the way OTMs are handled.

Mexicans are processed and sent back across the border

within a few hours but Mexico won't allow the United States

to send them citizens from other countries--and under U.S.

law they're entitled to a deportation hearing.

Because the immigration service lacks prison beds to hold

them, the vast majority of OTMs are released from custody and

asked to voluntarily return for their court date--which the

majority of them obviously do not do.

``They are given a piece of paper called a notice to

appear, which administratively starts the ball rolling for a

deportation hearing,'' said Cutler. ``Not surprisingly, fewer

than 15 percent show up.

``Our bureaucracy is not up to the challenge of protecting

this country, our Congress is not dealing with the reality in

a 21st Century way, our immigration laws are terribly out of

place,'' commented Sharry.

So what's the answer? While some say more legal immigration is needed, others want the borders effectively closed. Both sides seem to agree that giving illegal immigrants a free pass is no solution at all.

I read from another article, ``Loophole to America'':

In the silvery-blue light of dusk, 20 Brazilians glided

across the Rio Grande in rubber rafts propelled by Mexican

smugglers who leaned forward and breast-stroked through the

gentle current.

Once on the U.S. side, the Brazilians scrambled ashore and

started looking for the Border Patrol. Their quick and well-

rehearsed surrender was part of a growing trend that is

demoralizing the Border Patrol and beckoning a rising number

of illegal immigrants from countries beyond Mexico.

``We used to chase them; now they're chasing us,'' Border

Patrol Agent Gus Balderas said as he frisked the Brazilians

and collected their passports late last month.

What happened next explains the odd reversal.

The group was detained overnight and given a court summons

that allowed them to stay in the United States pending an

immigration hearing. Then a Border Patrol agent drove them to

the McAllen bus station, where they continued their journey

into America.

The formal term for the court summons is a ``notice to

appear.'' Border Patrol agents have another name for it. They

call it a ``notice to disappear.''

Of the 8,908 notices to appear that the immigration court

in nearby Harlingen issued last year to non-Mexicans, 8,767

failed to show up for their hearings, according to statistics

compiled by the Justice Department's Executive Office of

Immigration Review. That is a no-show rate of 98 percent.

The problem is that U.S. immigration authorities are short

on detention space. They can send Mexicans back across the

border within hours. But international law prohibits them

from sending non-Mexicans to Mexico. Instead, they must

arrange travel documents and flights directly to the

immigrant's country of origin. The process, which the U.S.

government pays for, takes weeks or even months.

The result is an unintended avenue of entry for a rapidly

growing class of illegal immigrants from Central and South

America who now see the Border Patrol more as a welcome wagon

than a barrier.

It is one example of the tears in the ``seamless web of

enforcement'' that immigration authorities vowed to establish

along the U.S.-Mexico border during the 1990s, when they

spent billions of dollars on strategically placed lights,

sensors, roads, fences and agents. It also helps explain why

the nation's illegal immigrant population has grown to record

levels despite the buildup.

The morning after Agent Balderas encountered the 20

Brazilians, another Border Patrol agent drove them to the

McAllen bus station where they headed toward their

destinations. They were armed with notices to appear that

carried them safely past Border Patrol checkpoints.

Two days later, Graice De Olveira-Silva and three

companions from Brazil were working for her relatives' house-

cleaning business in Atlanta.

It is a world turned upside down for the Border Patrol,

especially here in South Texas. Back in 1985, things were so

different that a woman was convicted on charges that she

drove illegal immigrants from El Salvador around the Border

Patrol and to the same McAllen bus station.

Now smugglers operate with impunity. After their loads of

immigrants splash

ashore, the smugglers slip back across the river.

As word of this border loophole filters back to Central and

South America, the volume of people coming to exploit it is

likely to grow, according to Border Patrol agents.

A Guatemalan arrested late last month in the McAllen sector

who gave his name as Hugo said that when word gets back home,

``Anyone who has a little money will be coming.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent both articles be printed in the Record.

I am not sure this amendment will solve that problem, but I do believe a clear case is made for more detention beds. The underlying bill adds 2,240 new detention beds for fiscal year 2006. The amendment I am offering today further increases the number of detention beds by 5,760 beds, bringing the number of new beds to the level we authorized 7 months ago in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

Lest there be any mistake made about me authorizing on an appropriations bill, this is authorized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, as is the previous amendment.

I look forward to working with the managers of the bill on both of these amendments. I am grateful the first amendment I proposed has been agreed to.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that authorizes the Secretary or Homeland Security to establish a pilot program to enhance an Indian tribe's response to border activity. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Byron Dorgan, and my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, as original cosponsors of this bill.

This bill establishes a pilot program to enhance tribal first responder capabilities, provide assistance for surveillance technologies and communication capabilities and to facilitate coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal governments along the international border. The criteria for participation in the pilot program is to be prescribed by the Secretary taking into consideration the tribes' proximity to the border and the extent to which border crossing activity impacts existing tribal resources.

This bill is substantially similar to Section 132 of S. 536, the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005, which was unanimously passed out of the Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year. It has been modified to address several concerns including to clarify that it does not alter the original jurisdiction or traditional role of the Federal agencies responding to border crimes or any Indian tribe.

Several Indian tribes inhabit land on or easily accessible to the United States and Canada and Mexico. This bill recognizes that these tribes are exceptionally vulnerable to border crimes. And, although enforcement of our immigration laws and border security is a Federal responsibility, these tribes continue to bear extraordinary costs in responding to border crimes and almost always divert funds intended for local police and welfare services to do so. For example, a tribal police officer may see suspicious drug or immigrant smuggling activity occurring within the Indian tribes boundaries or come upon an accident scene or death involving illegal immigrants or drug smugglers. The tribal officer is required to notify Federal officials and render aid to the injured. The Federal official may be hours away and the tribal police are usually asked to detain the suspects or possibly transport them to medical aid. Meanwhile, the tribal police agency is unable to respond to community calls for service. Additionally, tribal police are intimately familiar with their territory and are able to provide Federal agencies with information that is useful in fulfilling their responsibilities.

I recognize that Federal and State agencies play the primary role in these efforts. However, in specific areas of this Nation, tribal government police, fire and emergency services often provide the first and often only response because of their access to the border. A tribe's proximity to the border and its responsibility for public safety and welfare of their members requires that they respond. Simply put, Indian tribes situated close to the international border are vulnerable and greatly impacted and we must acknowledge their daily role in responding to border crimes. This bill gives them added tools to do so.

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a much needed amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Byron Dorgan, and my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl as original cosponsors of this bill.

This bill expands the existing Federal investigative authority by authorizing other Federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA Office of Law Enforcement, in addition to the FBI, to investigate cases of misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts. This bill is substantially the same as Section 111 of the Native American Omnibus Act, S. 536, which passed out of the Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year. This bill also addresses concerns that were raised by the administration.

A major source of tribal and individual Indian income is derived from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts. Yet, today, millions of dollars are diverted each year from these original artists and Indian tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. However, it is my understanding that few, if any, criminal prosecutions have been brought in Federal court for such violations. It is understandable that enforcing the criminal law that prohibits the sale of Indian arts and crafts misrepresented as an Indian product is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes in Indian country. Therefore, expanding the investigative authority to include other Federal agencies is intended to promote the active investigation of alleged misconduct. It is my hope that with this much needed change will deter those who dare to violate the act.

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

Mr. President, we are all deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life caused by the terrorist attacks in London last week. Those incidents are a painful reminder of the cruel nature of our enemies in this war, and of what we must do to fight and win against those who wish to eradicate our way of life.

I have said on many occasions that we cannot just play defense in this war, that instead we must take the fight to the enemy. Still, we must do what is possible to protect Americans at home. To that end, the Senate passed by unanimous consent last year the Rail Security Act of 2004, rail security legislation that, unfortunately, was not approved by the House of Representatives. The London bombings and the attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system last year demonstrate all too vividly the continuing need for this legislation.

Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Though we have increased dramatically our security capabilities since 9/11, we have more to do. For example, since 9/11, only modest resources have been dedicated to rail security, and efforts to address rail security remain fragmented despite the constant and tragic reminders abroad that we are in desperate need of deliberate action. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has not yet completed a vulnerability assessment for the rail system, nor is there an integrated security plan that reflects the unique characteristics of passenger and freight rail operations.

The legislation I am introducing today, which is nearly identical to the Rail Security Act of 2004, would authorize resources to ensure rail transportation security receives a high priority in our efforts to secure our country from terrorism. The legislation directs DHS to complete a vulnerability assessment for the rail system and make recommendations for addressing security weaknesses within 180 days of enactment. It would also authorize funding to address long-standing fire and life-safety needs for several tunnels along the Northeast Corridor, and would authorize appropriations to meet immediate security needs for intercity and freight rail transportation. Further, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office, the bill would require DHS to sign a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Transportation to add clarity to each department's roles and responsibilities with respect to rail security. It is my expectation that this memorandum would supplement and add detail to the memorandum of understanding between the two departments signed on September 28, 2004.

The freight railroads, individual commuter authorities, and Amtrak have, on their own initiative, completed risk assessments and taken steps to safeguard passengers, facilities, and cargo. These efforts, accomplished at a very small cost to the Federal Government, have helped make our rail system safer. The legislation introduced today will augment these efforts and bring these individual initiatives together in a coordinated rail security program.

I trust that the Senate will move quickly to once again pass this essential legislation. We owe at least that much to the American people as we continue our struggle against an enemy that wants nothing less than to destroy everything we stand for and believe in.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that authorizes the Secretary or Homeland Security to establish a pilot program to enhance an Indian tribe's response to border activity. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Byron Dorgan, and my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, as original cosponsors of this bill.

This bill establishes a pilot program to enhance tribal first responder capabilities, provide assistance for surveillance technologies and communication capabilities and to facilitate coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal governments along the international border. The criteria for participation in the pilot program is to be prescribed by the Secretary taking into consideration the tribes' proximity to the border and the extent to which border crossing activity impacts existing tribal resources.

This bill is substantially similar to Section 132 of S. 536, the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005, which was unanimously passed out of the Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year. It has been modified to address several concerns including to clarify that it does not alter the original jurisdiction or traditional role of the Federal agencies responding to border crimes or any Indian tribe.

Several Indian tribes inhabit land on or easily accessible to the United States and Canada and Mexico. This bill recognizes that these tribes are exceptionally vulnerable to border crimes. And, although enforcement of our immigration laws and border security is a Federal responsibility, these tribes continue to bear extraordinary costs in responding to border crimes and almost always divert funds intended for local police and welfare services to do so. For example, a tribal police officer may see suspicious drug or immigrant smuggling activity occurring within the Indian tribes boundaries or come upon an accident scene or death involving illegal immigrants or drug smugglers. The tribal officer is required to notify Federal officials and render aid to the injured. The Federal official may be hours away and the tribal police are usually asked to detain the suspects or possibly transport them to medical aid. Meanwhile, the tribal police agency is unable to respond to community calls for service. Additionally, tribal police are intimately familiar with their territory and are able to provide Federal agencies with information that is useful in fulfilling their responsibilities.

I recognize that Federal and State agencies play the primary role in these efforts. However, in specific areas of this Nation, tribal government police, fire and emergency services often provide the first and often only response because of their access to the border. A tribe's proximity to the border and its responsibility for public safety and welfare of their members requires that they respond. Simply put, Indian tribes situated close to the international border are vulnerable and greatly impacted and we must acknowledge their daily role in responding to border crimes. This bill gives them added tools to do so.

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and the full text of the bill be included in the Record.