Floor Statements

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today we have learned that one of our Nation's finest jurists will step down from our highest court. Despite her departure from the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will leave a lasting mark on American jurisprudence characterized by fairness, balance, and integrity.

Justice O'Connor's career and service to our Nation have been truly remarkable. This country will miss her presence on the Supreme Court dearly.

Some have said that no other individual in our Nation's history has come to the Supreme Court under greater expectations. Not only did Justice O'Connor meet these expectations, she far exceeded them. When President Reagan nominated and the Senate unanimously confirmed Justice O'Connnor in 1981, she became the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court and, over time, she grew to be one of the crucial swing votes on the court--her decisions driven both by her conservative sensibilities and also by her practical nature.

Justice O'Connor grew up on the Lazy-B Cattle Ranch in southeastern Arizona. She learned to drive at age 7 and could fire rifles and ride horses by the time she turned 8. Perhaps it was her Arizona roots that fueled both her pragmatism and her desire to succeed.

Mr. President, after high school, Justice O'Connor attended Stanford University where she majored in economics and graduated with high honors. A legal dispute over her family's ranch, however, inspired her interest in law and her decision to enroll at Stanford Law School. Justice O'Connor completed law school in only two years, but she still managed to serve on the Stanford Law Review and receive highest honors. O'Connor graduated third out of a class of 102. First in the class was fellow Arizonan William H. Rehnquist. I suggest that maybe we should turn to Arizona once again for a Supreme Court nominee, considering the track records of Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist.

In law school, Justice O'Connor also met her future husband, John Jay O'Connor, a fine man and husband.

Mr. President, Justice O'Connor faced a difficult job market after leaving Stanford. No law firm in California wanted to hire her and only one offered her a position as a legal secretary. Later, in Arizona, she again found it difficult to obtain a position with any law firm, so she started her own firm. It is truly remarkable to realize just how far Justice O'Connor has risen during her life despite the adversity she has faced.

After she gave birth to her second son, Justice O'Connor withdrew from her professional life to care for her children. Nevertheless, she became involved in many volunteer activities during this time. She also began an involvement with the Arizona Republican Party. After five years as a full-time mother, Justice O'Connor returned to work as an assistant State Attorney General in Arizona. Arizona Governor Jack Williams later appointed her to occupy a vacant seat in the Arizona Senate. O'Connor successfully defended her Senate position for two more terms and eventually became the majority leader. By rising to the position of majority leader, Justice O'Connor achieved another first for American women.

In 1974, Justice O'Connor ran and won a judgeship on the Maricopa County Superior Court, which resulted in her service in all three branches of Arizona government. A year later, she was nominated to serve on to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Almost two years after that, President Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court to replace the retiring Justice Potter Stewart. The Senate rightly confirmed O'Connor's nomination unanimously and the Court soon abandoned its use of ``Mr. Justice'' as the form of address. Justice O'Connor herself described the significance of her nomination in the following way. She said, ``A woman had never held a position at that level of our government. And it was a signal that it was all right that women could be in such positions. That they could do well in such positions.''

Mr. President, Justice O'Connor brought to her position on the Supreme Court her remarkable life history characterized by independence, perseverance, and achievement. Early in her tenure on the Court, observers identified her as part of the Court's conservative faction. The public often associated her with Justice Rehnquist because of their shared roots and values. Over time, though, Justice O'Connor combined her conservative sensibilities with a desire to find pragmatic solutions based on sound legal interpretation. She approached each case thoughtfully.

It will be difficult to fill the void that Justice O'Connor's resignation has created, nor can anyone assume a similar place in American history. There can be only one first, and Sandra Day O'Connor was it.

Mr. President, very rarely do I presume to speak on behalf of all of the citizens of my State of Arizona. But I know, with confidence, that I do so now when from the bottom of our hearts we thank Justice O'Connor for her magnificent service to her State and to her Nation. She and her magnificent husband John will be in our thoughts and prayers as they enter the struggle ahead. We are confident that with her traditional courage, she will face this new challenge and emerge victorious. We thank her for her service. We thank her for her family. We are, most of all, confident that Americans and Arizonans will remember her with great pride.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will respond.

I may ask for an additional 5.

I thank my friend from Montana.

The Senator from North Dakota just stated, Who pays? I wonder, who pays when my wife goes to the supermarket and pays 13 cents more for a pound of sugar than she does and would if we had sugar from these countries able to come into this country?

I am not in the business of producing or selling sugar, nor are many American families. But there are a whole lot of American families who are in the business of buying products that have sugar in them. They pay an exorbitantly higher price because of the protectionism that is practiced for the sugar industry. Since when can't the United States compete on a level playing field?

The opposition to this is clearly one that is protectionist in nature--for an industry that, in my view, should be able to compete with foreign producers. That is not what this debate really should be all about.

The stakes could hardly be higher--whether we import or export sugar, whether the Central American Free Trade Agreement passes has implications, whether the American farm exports will enter the Dominican Republic duty free, or whether Guatemala will be able to increase its textile protection.

By the way, I say to the Presiding Officer, if Guatemala is unable to export its textiles into the United States, I don't believe it will be the United States that would be producing textiles; I believe it will be the Chinese and others.

I don't want to be hyperbolic, but I believe the vote we will soon take on CAFTA is one of the most important that will be cast in the Senate this year. It is important because at stake is the future of Central America in its economic and political dimensions and, hence, its security dimensions. It is important because it will determine whether the free-trade agenda as laid out by President Bush proceeds toward a successful Doha round of global trade talks or whether the effort will be stopped in its tracks. It is important because it will help determine whether the invigorating effects of free trade are experienced in our country anew or whether the protectionists are able to erect their walls around us. It is important because it will show whether a trade policy in America is determined by sugar growers, unions, and other special interests or whether it is determined by leaders who place at the forefront the interests of our Nation as a whole.

A few years ago, we concluded a free-trade agreement with Chile. There are certain facts that are available already. There were the usual arguments against it from the protectionists. In 2004, the first year the agreement was effective, two-way trade increased by 33 percent. In the first 4 months of this year, it grew even faster--45 percent. Exports from the United States to Chile have risen at still higher rates--nearly 35 percent in 2004 and almost 63 percent in the first quarter of this year. Preliminary numbers suggest that in 2005, U.S. exports to Chile may nearly double those recorded in 2003. That is what free trade is all about. That is based on the firm conviction that most of us have that American products can compete with any in the world.

Now, some can't. And that is terrible, and that is why we have trade adjustment assistance. When industries in the United States are directly affected by importation of products from other countries as a result of trade agreements, we have trade adjustment assistance to provide workers retraining to upgrade their ability to find other employment. We need to do more in that area. But to somehow reject the benefits of free trade because of the damage it may do--and I emphasize ``may''--to certain industries is very shortsighted.

We see in Latin America today a growing skepticism about democracy-- equated in the minds of many with austerity programs and lack of improvement in the standard of living. Disturbing polls suggest that discontent with democracy is on the rise and that large percentages would prefer a strong man who could improve living standards to a democratically elected leader who could not. CAFTA has the potential to illustrate the tangible benefits that come from democracy--free market economics and partnership with the United States.

Let me give one concrete example. The apparel industry is critical in the regional economy, accounting for $9 billion in exports each year. CAFTA will lift duty on most apparel and nonapparel goods, immediately bolstering an economic sector that represents tens of thousands of jobs in the region. The overall effect of this and other benefits would be to help lock in Central America's political and economic gains.

Let's consider what happens if CAFTA fails. Rejecting the pact would be seen by our Central American partners as American disengagement from a region important to our security. Thousands of apparel production jobs would likely be lost as they move production facilities from Central America to China, further exacerbating illegal immigration to the United States. It would signal to the people of Central America that the support of the United States for their freedom and prosperity is more rhetorical than real--even in a win-win situation for both sides. It would have a devastating effect on our effort to lower trade barriers with other partners around the world and to push forward the Doha round of multilateral talks and put another notch in the post of the special interests as they despoil the public good for their private gain.

We need CAFTA. It is important to our economy. But it is also vital to our political security and humanitarian interests in Central America.

The former President of Costa Rica, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Oscar Arias, speaking of CAFTA, said it represents ``an unparalleled opportunity to transform Central America into a dynamic economy, deeply integrated with worldwide flows of trade and technology. We ask not for charity, but enlightened self-interest from our northern neighbor.''

I am concerned about the state of democracy in Central America. I am disturbed that in Nicaragua there is every likelihood we may see Daniel Ortega as the next President of that country. I am disturbed about the failing economy and corruption that exists in El Salvador. I am concerned about the continuing stagnation of the economies of Guatemala and Honduras.

Mr. President, if the countries of Central America continue to fail economically, it will give rise to a situation that I do not want to revisit. When I first came to the Senate, one of the overriding and compelling challenges we faced was the rise of communism in Central America, the influence of Castro in countries such as Nicaragua, the Sandinistas in power, the effect it had on neighboring countries such as Honduras and El Salvador where there was an ongoing revolution. Billions of dollars of American taxpayers' dollars were poured into the region in aiding El Salvador in combating others in the region.

One of the most emotional and unpleasant debates I have ever engaged in on the floor of this Senate had to do with aid to the Contras. I do not want to revisit those days of the 1980s. I do not want to go back to a region that may be beset by corruption, anarchy, and possible insurgencies.

We have another individual on the rise in our hemisphere, and his name is Chavez from Venezuela. He espouses policies and programs that I believe are not in the best interests of the people of Venezuela. And he also, I believe, is having an influence in the region. If there is anything we need today, it is strong, viable economies in Central America, so they can progress, so they can be strong, and they can again be allies of the United States of America, not in a military fashion but in their advocacy for free and open societies, democracies, and places where people can raise their families in a situation of security and peace.

I would like to mention again, if there is one lesson we have learned in the challenge of illegal immigration in this country, it is that if people cannot feed themselves and their families where they are, they will go to places where they think they can. If that means risking their lives crossing the Arizona-Sonora border, they will do so.

Mr. President, I strongly urge--I strongly urge--my colleagues to not only understand the trade implications of this agreement but the political, social, as well as economic reasons for us to consider favorably this agreement. The stakes are very high. I believe, with the leadership of this President and the bipartisan support of this body, we will prevail.

I thank my colleague from Montana for allowing me this time. I yield back the remaining time.

If the minority leader will yield, I was told there is a whole stack of amendments going to be considered. I am sure some will require rollcall votes.

Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senator from Nevada, there is a large stack of amendments my staff has just been handed. Here we are at 10:15 at night, and we have never laid eyes on them before. I say again to my colleagues, plan on rollcall votes.

What is the agreement?

I object.

Mr. President, I believe the hour now is 5 minutes to midnight

as I note from the clock. We are now completing consideration of an appropriations bill that entails $31.2 billion of the taxpayers' money. We began consideration of this around 10:30, I think. So, between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and midnight we have now thoroughly scrutinized the expenditure of $31.2 billion of taxpayer money, which also happens to be $1.5 billion over the request. I am sure all of my colleagues feel we have thoroughly examined a $31.2 billion expenditure of their money.

This system we are under now is broken. We shouldn't be, on a night before we are--we all know we are going into a recess--considering a bill of this magnitude in an hour and a half at a very late hour. I certainly do not quarrel with any of my colleagues who did not have an opportunity to examine the bill and the report language.

It really rolls out the pork barrel. It has $1.5 billion for unrequested earmarks with more than $1.3 billion going to 618 Army Corps of Engineers projects, 618 projects that the Corps has not identified as priorities for fiscal year 2006. I don't know how we can justify providing more than $1 billion for low priority, nonessential water projects and, at the same time, pat ourselves on the back for a very stringent budget that we passed which caused many Americans to make sacrifices in very important programs because we could not afford them.

So we are adding $1 billion for low priority, nonessential water projects. Certainly when it comes to funding the pet water projects, budget deficit and national priorities flow out of the minds of our appropriators.

We just found out that we had about $1 billion or $1.5 billion or $2 billion shortfall in funding for our veterans and their health care, but we can afford more than $1 billion for nonessential projects. One of them, $145 million for additional Army Corps projects in Mississippi. The banks of the Yazoo River Basin overflow with $113.3 million and the Yazoo pumps are humming right along with $25 million. The Yazoo pumps is the controversial project that I spoke about in the Senate more than 2 years ago. The bill brings the total appropriated to the pumps since fiscal year 2003 to $59 million. The project was opposed by the EPA. It was opposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service because it will drain and damage 200,000 acres of public and private wetlands in the heart of the Mississippi flyway for no important public purpose. Residential flooding problems were addressed decades ago by the Federal construction of the Yazoo backwater levy.

We have $90 million for the central and south Florida and the Kissimmee River; $67 million for Alaska projects, including $15 million for the Nome and Unalaska Harbor improvements. With these improvements Alaska residents will continue to enjoy a great deal of the taxpayers' dollars; $30 million for the American River watershed in California, and the list goes on.

I will turn, instead, to some of the authorizations in this appropriations bill. It is a violation of Senate rules to authorize on an appropriations bill. That rule continues to be violated in an egregious fashion. Directing or authorizing policy is a function reserved for the authorizing committee. With an appropriations bill full of authorizations that modify existing law and policy and significantly run up the tab for the taxpayers, these authorizing provisions belong in the water resources development legislation. And that is where some of them were taken from and placed into this bill. Others were newly created for the purpose of authorizing projects and appropriating funds for them.

Some examples:

An authorization to increase the funding of the Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia, by more than $128 million--not authorized.

An authorization for the construction of a project on the Lower Mud River, West Virginia, in accordance with a draft Corps report--a draft Corps report; not a final report, a draft Corps report--and a 75- percent Federal cost share of $34,125,000.

If a 75/25 Federal cost share seems generous, well, my friends, there is a provision in this bill that goes even further, to strike the required cost-sharing provisions secured by President Reagan in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Yazoo Basin Headwater Improvement, Mississippi, is authorized to include the design and construction at full Federal expense such measures as determined by the Corps to be ``advisable''--take note of the word ``advisable''--not technically feasible or economically beneficial--for the entire Yazoo River and more than 27 tributaries and watersheds. There is no way of telling how much advisable measures might end up costing the taxpayers.

Authorization to increase the cost ceiling of the Central New Mexico Army Corps project by $25 million.

Authorization for the Corps of Engineers to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from the Christina River in Delaware with funding of $275,000. I guess when $175,000 was earmarked for this project in the Emergency Supplemental Act of 2005, no one appreciated that the Corps did not have the authority to address this ``emergency'' as well as not knowing the cost.

Authorization for $10 million for the Army Corps projects in Alpine,

Mr. President, I applaud the Senator for his courage in taking on this issue. I have watched the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, speak in a passionate and advocating fashion, and I admire her knowledge of the facts and her advocacy. Unfortunately, I am supporting the amendment. It offers Members an opportunity to vote for the taxpayers' interests and put a halt to wasting their hard-earned dollars for the construction of new roads in the Tongass National Forest. The word ``new'' is key here because, according to the U.S. Forest Service, the existing road system already allows loggers access to more timber than the average annual cut in the Tongass for the past 3 years.

Not only do the existing roads--5,000 miles already bought and paid for by taxpayers--offer access to more timber than the timber companies can harvest, the Forest Service can't even sell the harvested timber at rates to recoup the costs of road construction and timber sale preparation.

So this program is a double insult to American taxpayers. Federal funds are first used to construct Tongass roads and prepare the timber sale and then the Forest Service sells that timber for a fraction of the federal investment.

My colleagues from Alaska have argued that this amendment singles out this national forest from all the rest and they are simply seeking equal treatment for Alaska. The reason that this amendment recognizes the Tongass is because it is the most consistently wasteful timber sales program in the entire National Forest System.

While we can't fix the entire broken Forest Service timber sales program today, we can fix this most egregious example of waste and mismanagement of scarce Federal dollars and that is the Tongass.

The Forest Service website indicates that road building in the Tongass is by far the most expensive in the National Forest System, with construction costs of $150,000 per mile--remarkable. At the same time, the existing Tongass roads already face a $100 million maintenance backlog.

My colleagues from Alaska have not denied the fact that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have subsidized the unprofitable Tongass timber program, but instead have made the extraordinary argument that ``the timber sales program on National Forests is not supposed to be profitable''.

When Congress established the Forest Service as stewards of the National Forests one hundred years ago, it was charged with the management of these public lands for commercial, recreational, and other purposes for the benefit of the American public. I'm sure no one conceived of the situation in the Tongass which has been detrimental to public interests for decades. Since 1982, taxpayers have provided more than $850 million subsidizing the logging industry in the Tongass National Forest alone. Between 1982 and 2002, cumulative losses for Tongass timber sales reached $750 million, or an annual average loss of $37 million.

In 2004, the Forest Service spent more than $48 million on the Tongass timber program, but took in less than $800,000 from timber companies. This amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of more than $160,000 per logging job in the Tongass. Nice industry profit, but it is long past time that we stop this.

Ironically, this program isn't even good for the Alaska economy. While a few hundred loggers are benefiting at taxpayers expense, many more Alaskan jobs that depend on recreation, small-scale logging, and tourism-related industries are harmed by the extensive road building, clear-cutting, and resulting degradation of water and wildlife resources.

Perhaps that is why more than 1000 sporting and gun clubs as well as local businesses have joined with taxpayer and conservation groups in opposition to the construction of new roads in the Tongass and in support of this amendment.

Every once in a while, a State or community has to go through a wrenching change. It is time for a change in the Tongass National Forest. I hope my colleagues will approve this amendment. Over time, I hope it will prove beneficial to the State of Alaska.

Mr. President, I will be necessarily absent for the later part of the day as I will be attending the Oath of Office Ceremony at the United States Naval Academy where my son is being sworn in as a midshipman.

I want to express my strong support for the two amendments that will be voted on today to address the unexpected and unacceptable funding shortfall for Veterans Administration medical services. I strongly endorse the two amendments that I am confident will be adopted overwhelmingly. It is incumbent on the Congress and the administration to continue to monitor the VA's funding situation closely and ensure proper medical assistance is readily available to our deserving veterans.

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill provides approximately $26.2 billion in discretionary spending--approximately $542 million over the President's request--for the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service, most agencies of the Interior Department-- except the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. I commend the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and in particular, the efforts of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for completing this appropriation bill in a timely manner.

Unfortunately, as is the case with many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, this bill and its accompanying report contains earmarks and pork projects which have not been authorized or requested. The bill provides funding for critical programs like forest health and restoration, superfund cleanup, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and PILT, but all too often, many of these accounts are eroded by unnecessary, unrequested earmarks.

This is especially frustrating given the $600 million annual maintenance backlog that is crippling the National Park system. There is not a single member of this body who does not have a National Park or monument, or other Park Service unit in his or her State that is not in need of attention. And while curbing the use of earmarks might not solve our Nation's enormous deficit or save our National Parks from long-term dilapidation, doing so would be a good step in repairing our broken appropriations process.

Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill or its accompanying report: $875,000 for a new water storage tank in the Town of Westerly, RI; $1,000,000 for water treatment projects in the Town of Waitsfield, VT; $2,465,000 for sudden oak death research; $200,000 for a poultry science project at Stephen F. Austin State University, Texas; $1,000,000 for statewide cesspool replacement in the County of Maui, HI; $1,800,000 for eider and sea otter recovery work at the Alaska SeaLife Center; $1,114,000 for a research laboratory in Sitka, AK; $500,000 for the University of Northern Iowa to develop new environmental technologies for small business outreach; $250,000 for paper industry byproduct waste reduction research in Wisconsin; $500,000 to continue research on pallid sturgeon spawning in the Missouri River; $400,000 to complete a bear DNA sampling study in Montana--the fourth consecutive year this earmark has been added to an appropriations vehicle; $450,000 for a well monitoring project in Hawaii; $5,100,000 to complete the visitor center at the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, Arkansas; $6,059,000 to rehab bathhouses at Hot Springs National Park, AR; $160,000 for soil survey mapping in Wyoming;

$400,000 for studies on the impact of lead mining in the Mark Twain National Forest; $500,000 for restoration at the Mark Twain Boyhood Home National Historic Landmark in Missouri.

In what has become perhaps one of the greatest examples of pork barrel politics, the Forest Service has lost more than $850 million since 1982 on timber sales and the construction of access roads for commercial logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. More than 4,000 miles of these roads criss-cross the Tongass and have accrued at least $100 million in deferred maintenance while serving little public purpose. And every year, Congress continues to appropriate funds to build new roads without accounting for the encumbrance imposed by existing roads. I support commercial logging, but not when it requires Federal subsidies that offer no return to the taxpayer. These federally funded roads are meant to stabilize the price of timber logged from the Tongass, but the program actually costs the Federal treasury tens of millions of dollars each year--nearly $48 million in fiscal year 2004 alone--because the value of Tongass lumber is not competitive and so the Forest Service takes a loss on almost every timber contract it manages. To clarify, Mr. President, that is hundreds of millions in Federal subsidies just to lose hundreds of millions in unprofitable logging.

Mark Twain, a cynic of politicians and government, once wrote: ``One of the first achievements of the legislature was to institute a ten- thousand-dollar agricultural fair to show off forty dollars worth of pumpkins.'' I can only speculate what Mark Twain would say about the egregious waste of taxpayer money allocated to continue the timber subsidy program in the Tongass National Forest.

I am pleased to have joined with Senator Sununu and others in offering an amendment which would prohibit funding for road building in the Tongas National Forest. I hope my colleagues' will support this amendment.

Many of my colleagues may have forgotten, but it is a violation of Senate rules to legislate on an appropriation bill. Directing or authorizing policy is a function reserved for the authorizing committees, not the appropriations committee. As is done far to frequently, this appropriations bill includes a variety of policy changes. Examples include: Language that authorizes the construction of a replacement IHS facility in Nome, AK, on land owned by the Sound Health Corporation; Language that allows the Secretary of the Interior to collect parking fees at the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial; Language that restricts the use of Forest Service answering machines during business hours unless the answering machine includes an option that enables callers to reach an individual. Why is this appearing in an appropriation bill? Perhaps the appropriators could exert jurisdiction over the waiting lines at the DMV?

Also, language that requires National Recreation Reservation Service call centers to be located within the United States and language that extends Abandoned Mine Land program until June 30, 2006. This is the third time the AML program has been extended via the appropriations process.

I may not have qualms with many of these particular expenditures and policy items. Some of them may be truly needed and deserving of swift passage. However, it is the casual disregard for Senate procedure that concerns me deeply. We need to be protecting the American taxpayer, not waving rules and passing appropriation bills with wasteful spending. We need to be thinking about the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending, not delivering pork projects to special interests and their lobbyists. Surely, my colleagues are aware of the fiscal challenges facing this Nation. The national debate is consumed by questions like: How will we pay for rising Medicare and Medicaid costs? Will we be protected from rising energy costs? Will Social Security be there for our children? The answers to those questions fall to the Congress my friends.

Mr. President, I regret that the Senate has once again produced an Energy bill that does not serve either the present or future energy needs of our Nation. The provisions in this bill will not make us less dependent on foreign oil, will not enhance the reliability of the Nation's electricity grid, will not effectively promote energy efficiency and technological innovation, will not reduce the price of energy to consumers over time, and will not address our significant contribution to the serious problem of global warming.

While I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee for the bipartisan process they have led throughout the debate, I cannot support the resulting bill. But I do want to acknowledge that compared to the last conference report on this issue, the measure before us is somewhat better in some respects and certainly more so than the recently passed House bill. For example, the Senate measure does include more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable technology, doesn't include an MTBE waiver or hand-outs to Hooters, and a few special interests were left behind, although not enough.

However, when the price of gas reaches $3 a gallon, which some experts believe will occur within a year, and more manufacturing jobs are lost overseas due to soaring energy costs, and the next blackout occurs, and the wait lists for fuel-efficient cars grow even longer, and climatic changes increasingly affect American lives and livelihoods, the American public is surely going to judge that this Congress did not live up to the great challenge before it by passing a sound, far-reaching, national energy policy measure, despite the multiple years in the making. And, as we all know, Congress doesn't have any popularity points to squander at this time. But even more to the point is that we don't have the time to squander, now is the time we need to act to avoid disastrous economic and environmental consequences.

I am not spinning a doomsday scenario here, most of my colleagues appreciate the uncomfortable fact that these are our present energy supply realities. That is why I believe a more appropriate title for this bill would be ``The Lost Energy and Economic Opportunity Act of 2005.'' Opportunity lost because as a body we should have the vision and the political courage to craft national energy policy that addresses the serious energy problems before us with effective, identified solutions that put us on a new course--a more secure, reliable, and smarter course. Not the same tired path this bill treads, and spending an estimated $16 billion from the Federal Treasury to provide taxpayers' subsidies largely for wealthy energy producers and corporations.

With the passage of this bill, we will have lost the historic opportunity to craft a national energy policy that relies on the market realities of high priced oil and gas instead of taxpayer subsidies to drive our country in the direction of energy efficiency, security, and independence, as well as global environmental stewardship. It doesn't make fiscal or common sense to provide billions of taxpayer subsidies to encourage the production of energy by companies that are already gaining tremendous riches at today's sky high oil and gas prices. But this bill does just that--it gives tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to the oil, gas, and coal industries. And if this was not sufficient, the bill provides an unlimited number of loan guarantees for the construction and operation of fossil fuel and nuclear projects far into the future. As such, no one can accurately assess how much this bill will end up costing American taxpayers. We can say with certainty that it is many times more expensive than the $6.7 billion that the Administration wanted and even much more costly than the House bill at $8 billion. The tax incentives alone in the Senate bill are estimated to be more than $14 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Remarkable generosity with scarce taxpayer funds.

My colleagues supporting this bill contend that these taxpayer subsidies are necessary to increase domestic energy supplies and provide incentives for technological innovation. I believe that these subsidies largely amount to a multi-billion-dollar maintenance of the status quo which will only perpetuate and exacerbate our current national energy and environmental problems for the foreseeable future.

Let me be clear. I understand the need to encourage the development and deployment of zero and low emission technologies. That is why Senator Lieberman and I added a comprehensive technology title to the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act which we offered as an amendment last week. But the incentives provided in our legislation are different in many respects from those in the Energy bill.

For example, we propose a cost-sharing program with industry for first-of-a-kind engineering designs of facilities using advanced coal gasification, nuclear, and solar technologies as well as large scale biofuel production. Subsequent users of the designs generated under the program would pay a ``royalty fee'' on a per facility basis which would be used to reimburse the overall costs of the program.

Following the design phase, loans or loan guarantees would be allowed for the construction phase of the first facility utilizing advanced coal gasification, nuclear, solar, and large scale

biofuel production technologies. These loans would be repaid at the end of the construction phase, and in the case of loan guarantees, the guarantees would terminate at the end of the construction phase. This is very different from the programs authorized under the base Energy bill which provides loan guarantees over the operational life of the facilities. The approach in the underlying bill leaves the taxpayers liable for a very long time, 30 years in some cases, as opposed to a construction period of maybe 5 years in our legislation. And in our bill, we envision all assistance would be funded through the revenues from the early auction of carbon allowances to industry rather than entirely from the taxpayers pockets as would be the case in the underlying bill.

Instead of our approach, the American public is going to be saddled entirely with the expense of this bill, which is running on empty-- empty of new ideas--and further running up our deficit. The fuel we should be relying on to drive our national energy policy is American consumer demand. If we allowed consumer demand to drive our legislative actions, this bill would emphasize energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy and include a reasonable and progressive CAFE standard for SUVs and all other passenger vehicles. If it were up to American consumers, we wouldn't be imposing a meaningless 8 billion gallon ethanol mandate, but instead would be making it possible for people to obtain and operate their automobiles using clean and abundant biofuels that actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil and not just provide subsidies to the ethanol producers. If it were to the American public, we would not be repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, without replacing it with alternative protections for utility ratepayers, investors, and pension plans. Finally, if it were up to the American public, we would pass a bill that addresses global climate change: more than 75 percent of Americans believe that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and participate with our allies and other countries in a united effort. And in the process of reducing emissions, we would also improve the health of millions of Americans who suffer from asthma and other air quality-related conditions.

If these kind of policies were to be found in this bill not only would it satisfy the majority of the American public but it would significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil while providing new jobs and financial benefits to the agricultural sector and a host of energy, technology, and service providers economy-wide. So why aren't we doing that in this bill? Why aren't we seizing the economic and environmental opportunities that are within our grasp, the available solutions to our current and future energy woes? There must be some good reason that we aren't giving the public what it wants but are giving special interests and rich corporations exactly what they want. I will leave that for the supporters of this bill to explain to the American public as we continue on our well-worn and convoluted energy path leading us no further than where we are right now. Only in the future, fuel prices will be higher, greenhouse gas emissions will be greater, and our economy, international relations, and environment will be in greater peril.

Mr. President, if we are going to put any kind of brake on earmarking and some of the subterfuge that exists of putting earmarks into conference reports which are then interpreted by the agencies affected as mandatory, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma should be adopted.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts involving former Federal officers and employees who represent Indian tribes.

The legislation amends the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA), 25 US.C. 450i(j), by limiting the exemption from Federal conflicts of interest laws. Current law exempts from the conflicts laws former Federal officers and employees who ``are employed by Indian tribes'', thus permitting these former Federal employees immediately to lobby the departments they just left and act as agents and attorneys for the tribes. The legislation limits this exemption only to those former Federal employees who are employees of Indian tribes pursuant to self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts.

The bill clarifies what I believe was the intent of the Congress, as evidenced by House Report No. 93-4600 that accompanies the ISDEA, that Federal employees who work in an area that is contracted or compacted to a tribe be able to continue performing their jobs if they become employees of the Indian tribe for purposes of working in the contracted or compacted area. The exception that was made to the conflict laws appeared to have been made in response to the recognition that when Indian tribes took on the responsibility of operating programs traditionally fulfilled by the Federal Government, they would need experienced individuals to fulfill contracted or compacted functions.

Former Federal employees who leave the Federal Government and go to work as outside lawyers or lobbyists for Indian tribes, however, would, under the legislation I am introducing today, be subject to the same conflicts of interest restraints that apply to other former Federal employees who work for other entities. The bill takes effect one year after enactment to allow time for people to familiarize themselves with the new law and for tribes to seek alternative representation if necessary.

Limiting the waiver of conflicts laws in this manner proposed in this bill will address a problem identified by the Inspector General of the Department of Interior. In a report dated February 2002, entitled ``Allegations Involving Irregularities in the Tribal Recognition Process and Concerns Relating to Indian Gaming, the IG laid out a number of contacts by former BIA and DOI officials, who left Federal employment to represent tribes at law firms, to the BIA regarding recognition matters that, but for the exemption from the conflicts rules, they would be barred from making. The IG suggested that these contacts were improper, but not illegal. These contacts were all made by former Federal employees who worked as outside lawyers and lobbyists for tribes. In his testimony before the Senator Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year, the Inspector General again raised the issue of conflicts of interest and referred to a problem of a ``revolving door'' involving former Department of Interior officials. This legislation seeks to address that problem. I urge my colleagues to support it. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts involving former Federal officers and employees who represent Indian tribes.

The legislation amends the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA), 25 US.C. 450i(j), by limiting the exemption from Federal conflicts of interest laws. Current law exempts from the conflicts laws former Federal officers and employees who ``are employed by Indian tribes'', thus permitting these former Federal employees immediately to lobby the departments they just left and act as agents and attorneys for the tribes. The legislation limits this exemption only to those former Federal employees who are employees of Indian tribes pursuant to self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts.

The bill clarifies what I believe was the intent of the Congress, as evidenced by House Report No. 93-4600 that accompanies the ISDEA, that Federal employees who work in an area that is contracted or compacted to a tribe be able to continue performing their jobs if they become employees of the Indian tribe for purposes of working in the contracted or compacted area. The exception that was made to the conflict laws appeared to have been made in response to the recognition that when Indian tribes took on the responsibility of operating programs traditionally fulfilled by the Federal Government, they would need experienced individuals to fulfill contracted or compacted functions.

Former Federal employees who leave the Federal Government and go to work as outside lawyers or lobbyists for Indian tribes, however, would, under the legislation I am introducing today, be subject to the same conflicts of interest restraints that apply to other former Federal employees who work for other entities. The bill takes effect one year after enactment to allow time for people to familiarize themselves with the new law and for tribes to seek alternative representation if necessary.

Limiting the waiver of conflicts laws in this manner proposed in this bill will address a problem identified by the Inspector General of the Department of Interior. In a report dated February 2002, entitled ``Allegations Involving Irregularities in the Tribal Recognition Process and Concerns Relating to Indian Gaming, the IG laid out a number of contacts by former BIA and DOI officials, who left Federal employment to represent tribes at law firms, to the BIA regarding recognition matters that, but for the exemption from the conflicts rules, they would be barred from making. The IG suggested that these contacts were improper, but not illegal. These contacts were all made by former Federal employees who worked as outside lawyers and lobbyists for tribes. In his testimony before the Senator Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year, the Inspector General again raised the issue of conflicts of interest and referred to a problem of a ``revolving door'' involving former Department of Interior officials. This legislation seeks to address that problem. I urge my colleagues to support it. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Regulation of Indian Gaming. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. PRESIDENT, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on the following:

(1) S.J. Res. 15, A bill to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.

(2) S. 374, A bill to provide compensation to the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes of South Dakota for damage to tribal land caused by Pick-Sloan projects along the Missouri River.

(3) S. 113, A bill to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria is deemed to be held in trust.

(4) S. 881, A bill to compensate the Spokane Tribe of Indians for the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes.

(5) S. 449, A bill to facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and persons born after Dec. 18, 1971, and for other purposes.

(6) H.R. 797/S. 475, A bill to amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 and other acts to improve housing programs for Indians.

(7) S. 623, A bill to direct the Secretary of Interior to convey certain land held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to the City of Richfield, UT, and for other purposes.

(8) S. 598, A bill to reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing.

(9) S. , A bill to condemn certain subsurface rights to land held trust by the State of Arizona, and convey subsurface rights held by BLM, for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe.

(10) S. , A bill to authorize funding for the National Indian Gaming Commission.

(11) S. 1239, A bill to authorize the use of Indian Health Service funds to pay Medicare Part D premiums on behalf of Indians.

(12) S. 1231, A bill to provide initial funding for the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education previously established by Congress.

(13) S. , A bill to require former Federal employees who are employed by tribes to adhere to conflict of interest rules.

(14) S. , A bill to amend the Tribally Controlled Community College and Universities Assistance Act.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee.

Mr. President, I support increasing corporate average fuel economy standards. In fact, I have supported strengthening CAFE standards for several years, and in 2002 I introduced legislation that would have significantly improved such standards. My strong support for raising CAFE standards makes it all the more difficult for me to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Durbin this evening.

When this body considers legislation, we must always be mindful of distinguishing between the advisability and the feasibility of the proposal before us. I strongly support the Durbin amendment's goals of lowering our reliance on foreign oil and of reducing

the emission of greenhouse gases. I strongly support those goals. But this amendment, sadly, does not appear to be achievable without significantly and detrimentally affecting our economy.

Mr. President, there are realistic options available to us. For example, I support legislation that would require passenger cars and light trucks to meet the same average fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles within a reasonable amount of time. I will continue to work towards such achievable and beneficial improvements to our Nation's average fuel economy.