Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Snowe, Biden, and Lieberman in introducing the Rail Security Act of 2007. This legislation is nearly identical to the rail security measures approved by the Senate during both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has yet to act

on rail security legislation. I remain hopeful that rail security will be made a top priority for the 110th Congress.

We have taken important steps and expended considerable resources to secure the homeland since 9/11. I think all would agree that air travel is safer than it was five years ago. And, we have worked to address port security in a comprehensive manner. However, we need to do more to better secure other transportation modes, a fact well documented by the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security in recent years. As a result, our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

The Rail Security Act would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion dollars 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 intercity passengers each workday. The legislation would also establish a grant program to encourage security enhancements by the freight railroads, Amtrak, shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with responsibility for passenger stations. It would help to address identified security weaknesses in a manner that also seeks to protect the taxpayers' interests.

As we continue fight the War on Terror, we need to do all we can to address our vulnerabilities. We have witnessed the tragic attacks on rail systems in other countries, including the cities of London, Mumbai and Madrid, and the devastating consequences of those attacks. It is essential that we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack, and this legislation will help to do just that.

As I mentioned earlier, the Senate has consistently supported legislation to promote rail security. Most recently, rail security provisions were adopted last Fall as part of the port security legislation. But again, the House failed to allow these important security provisions to move ahead, and the provisions were stripped from the conference agreement. As a result, our rail network continues to remain vulnerable to terrorist attack. That is unacceptable in my judgement.

I urge the Senate to move quickly to again pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2007. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation. Simply put, this legislation would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers.

For almost a decade, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) spent more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest State and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission, USBC or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

Mr. President, it is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Indian Tribes Methamphetamine Reduction Grants Act of 2007. This bill is identical to S. 4113, a bipartisan measure that was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on December 8, 2006, the last day of the 109th Congress. The legislation would allow Indian tribes to be eligible for funding through the Department of Justice to eradicate the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale and manufacture in Native American communities. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Baucus, Grassley, Reid, Feinstein, and Feingold in introducing this important legislation.

The impacts of methamphetamine use on communities across the Nation are well known and cannot be overstated. Methamphetamine is the leading drug-related law enforcement problem in the country. Unfortunately, the meth crisis is affecting Indian Country most severely. Very serious concerns have been raised by the U.S. Department of Justice, States, and other non-tribal law enforcement agencies over the rapidly growing levels of methamphetamine production and trafficking on reservations with large geographic areas or tribes adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border. But because of the sovereign status of the tribes, criminals are generally not subject to state jurisdiction in many cases. As a result, local law enforcement often has no jurisdiction in Indian country, and tribal law enforcement agencies bear the brunt of most law enforcement functions.

The problem of meth in Indian country, which the National Congress of American Indians identified last year as its top priority, is ubiquitous, and has strained already overburdened law enforcement, health, social welfare, housing, and child protective and placement services on Indian reservations. Last year a former tribal judge on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and other drugs. The day before, the Navajo Nation police arrested an 81 year old grandmother, her daughter, and her granddaughter, for selling meth. One tribe in Arizona had over 60 babies born with meth in their systems. In 2005, the National Indian Housing Council expanded its training for dealing with meth in tribal housing: the average cost of decontaminating a single residence that has been used a meth lab is $10,000.

During the 109th Congress, as the Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I held hearings on this serious matter. Committee witnesses testified that the methamphetamine epidemic in Indian country has contributed to a rise in child abuse and neglect cases, among other social ills, and some tribes reported dramatic increases in suicide rates among young people linked to methamphetamine use. Following our hearings, I was pleased to work with Senators Dorgan, Sessions, Bingaman and others in improving upon our legislation to assist Indian Country in fighting this terrible drug crisis.

To avoid any potential misinterpretation of the intent of this legislation, this bill includes language developed and agreed to during the last Congress that is designed to clarify the intent of the bill. This clarifying language, provided in section 2(a)(4) of the bill, is intended to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, the legislation does not somehow authorize a grantee state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one state, territory or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has such jurisdiction.

The legislation further clarifies that authority under the bill to award grants would have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding or denying a grant of funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe. So, for example, if a state, territory or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the state, territory or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants as permitted under this legislation. The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection, and nothing else.

The measure I am introducing today takes but a small step on the long journey toward our fight against methamphetamine. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am please to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and Scenic River. A companion measure is being introduced today by Congressman Renzi and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation.

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800's when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900's, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service (APS), one of the state's largest eclectic utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six Threatened and Endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found

eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private property owners.

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Wyden and Sununu in introducing the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007. This bill would ensure that consumers never have to pay a toll when they access the Information Highway. Whether consumers log onto the Internet using cable modem, DSL, dial-up or wireless services, under this bill, they will not be taxed by any State or local governments for their Internet usage.

Keeping Internet access affordable to all Americans is a worthy policy goal. The Internet has become a fixture and core component of modem American life that has created and continues to generate social and economic opportunities throughout the United States.

In 1998, Congress put in place a temporary ban on any State or local taxes on Internet access. Additionally, Congress placed a moratorium on multiple or discriminatory State and local taxes on e-commerce transactions to ensure the growth of online commerce. This moratorium was extended in 2004, but is set to expire November 1, 2007. Our legislation, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007, would make the moratorium permanent.

Today, the U.S. ranks 12th in the world in per capita Internet access, lagging behind competitors South Korea, the United Kingdom and Canada. This is absolutely unacceptable for a country that leads the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness. We certainly cannot afford to make Internet access more difficult to obtain if we want to become more internationally competitive.

There is little doubt that the development and growth of the Internet was aided by the tax moratorium. In 1998, the year the moratorium was first enacted, 36 percent of U.S. adults reported using the Internet. In 2006, that number grew to 73 percent, an all time high according to an April 2006 Pew Internet & American Life Project Report. However, the report also found that Americans in the lowest income households are considerably less likely to be online. Just 55 percent of adults living in households with less than $30,000 annual income go online, versus 73 percent of those whose income is between $30,000-$50,000. This ``digital divide'' needs to be closed immediately. Continuing Congress's policy of reducing the cost of Internet access, by preventing the service from being taxed, is one step we can take now to close the ``digital divide.''

As use of the Internet has grown, so has e-commerce. According to the most recent comScore Networks report, Americans spent over $100 billion on Internet purchases during 2006, a major milestone for retailers and the World Wide Web. This legislation would ensure that online transactions are not taxed by cities or States at a rate higher than other sales transactions. Again, the goal of this legislation is to make the Internet affordable to all

Americans and foster the growth of the Internet.

With respect to the question of whether it is wise to make Internet access tax free, Congress has a long history of giving tax incentives to commercial activities that we believe help our society. The Internet is a technology that is a source of and vehicle for significant economic benefits. The proponents of this legislation strongly believe the Internet clearly merits the tax incentives provided by this bill.

I recognize that there are some who wish to continue to make the Internet tax moratorium temporary. Their premise is that the Internet will continue to evolve and thus Internet access may develop into a service the States and localities would wish to tax. I believe that this moratorium should be permanent to continue encouraging those very Internet-related innovations. By making the moratorium permanent, businesses that invest in and provide Internet access will be able to operate in a predictable tax environment. This will result in continued investment in this very important social, political and economic medium.

Congress now has the opportunity to extend permanently the Internet tax moratorium and assure consumers that taxes will not inhibit the offering of affordable Internet access. By supporting this legislation, we can continue to promote Internet usage by Americans as well as encourage innovation relating to this technology. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this pro-consumer, pro-innovation, and pro-technology bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator DeMint

in introducing the Cell Phone Tax Moratorium Act of 2007. This bill would put a stop to new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services for a period of 3 years.

The average general sales tax in the U.S. today is around six percent, but the average State and local taxes and fees on cell phone service comes in at about 17 percent. Consumers are left paying a hefty portion of their monthly cell phone bill to the Government for what many believe is their most important communications device.

The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors' Association have issued policy positions calling for states to eliminate excessive and discriminatory taxes on communications services. State and local governments have been working with the telecommunications industry to find a solution to these excessive taxes, but no agreement has been reached. During the three year moratorium, it is my hope that State and local governments--in cooperation with industry--will work to eliminate discriminatory taxes and fees on wireless services.

Excessive taxes dampen innovation, and are regressive, hitting the most vulnerable customers the hardest. Although more then 72 percent of all Americans own a cell phone, 26 percent said they could not live without it because it is their only communications source, according to a recent Pew Internet and Life Project report. Cell phone only owners are often those who find it difficult to afford a wired and a wireless phone. Additionally, according to the same report, 74 percent of the Americans say they have used their cell phone in an emergency and gained valuable assistance.

Some State and local governments cannot move beyond the idea that wireless services are some kind of luxury item that can be taxed at a higher rate. These services may have been a luxury item many years ago, but due to deregulation wireless services are more affordable than ever and even necessary for personal or business reasons. This is why it is perplexing that some states burden cell phone subscribers with taxes and fees that can be as high as 24 percent of a consumer's total bill.

Tax rates as high as this are generally associated with cigarettes and alcohol and known as ``sin taxes'' designed to reduce consumption. I cannot imagine it is the intention of states and localities to reduce consumption of wireless services.

Mindful of the revenue requirements of States and localities, this bill does not eliminate existing discriminatory taxes. Nor does the bill prohibit states and localities from imposing new taxes on wireless services that are not discriminatory. The bill simply puts a stop to the creation of new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services.

Last year I introduced similar legislative language during a mark-up in the Senate Commerce Committee. The amendment passed with a vote 21- 1. I am hopeful that this bill will once again be supported by the Commerce Committee and that it will be approved by the full Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in ending the discriminatory sales taxes on this very popular communications service.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Collins, and Lieberman in introducing a bill to provide greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government, and to ensure greater accountability among public officials.

The legislation proposes a number of important and necessary reforms. It would provide for faster reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and their employers under current law. It would require greater disclosure of lobbyists' contributions and payments to lawmakers and entities associated with them, as well as fundraising and other events they host. the bill also would require greater disclosure from both lobbyists, and Members and employees of Congress, of travel that is arranged or financed by a lobbyist or his client.

To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and the private sector, the bill would strengthen the lobbying restrictions on former senior members of the Executive Branch, former Members of Congress, and former senior congressional staff. It would require that Members publicly disclose negotiations they are having with prospective private employers to ensure there is no conflict of interests. The bill also would modify the provision in current law that exempts former Federal employees who go to work for Indian tribes as outside lobbyists and agents from the revolving door laws.

The bill would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and their staff. To ensure that such a ban is not circumvented, the bill also would require Members of Congress and their staff to pay the fair market value for travel on private planes and the fair market value of sports and entertainment tickets. Members and staff would also have to post the details of their privately-sponsored work trips on-line for public inspection.

The bill would establish an independent, non-partisan Office of Public Integrity. Armed with a number of investigative tools, the Office of Public Integrity would investigate alleged misconduct by Members and their staff and make appropriate recommendations to the Senate Ethics Committee for final disposition.

Finally, the bill would help us combat wasteful, porkbarrel spending. It would amend Congressional rules to allow lawmakers to challenge unauthorized appropriations, earmarks, and policy riders in appropriations bills.

Mr. President, when I introduced similar legislation over a year ago, I regretted that such reform was even necessary. And, I voted against the bill that was ultimately passed in the Senate because it lacked a number of elements essential to true reform.

Unfortunately, the need for such reform has only become more acute. The American people's faith and confidence in this venerable institution has steadily eroded. The day after the mid-term elections, CNN reported that, according to national exit polls, voters were concerned about corruption and ethics in Government more than any other issue. I can tell you the polls, if not spot on, are not far off.

During my travels around the country last year, it quickly became clear that there is a deep perception that we legislators do not act on the priorities of the American people, that special interests, and not the people's interests, guide our legislative hand. This loss in confidence is not limited to a single party or ideology; rather, it cuts across the spectrum. It is a perception bred by recent Congressional failures and scandals, which I need not chronicle here.

We can begin to restore faith in this institution by divesting ourselves of some of the perks and privileges that have somehow crept into public service. Take, for example, free meals and sports and entertainment tickets. The American people have rightfully come to see the abuse of such perks as a corrupting influence. In a string of guilty pleas last year, several lobbyists, former congressional aides, and a congressman admitted that such gifts were used as bribes. Quite frankly, there is no good reason why Members of Congress and their staff cannot forgo such gifts from lobbyists. No one would seriously contend that they are necessary for us to conduct the people's business. A total gift ban would go a long way towards restoring the public's confidence in us.

Another critical aspect requiring reform is the ability of a Member to travel on a corporate jet and only pay the rate of a first class plane ticket. This bill requires Senators and their employees who use corporate or charter aircraft to pay the fair market value for that travel. While I appreciate that such a change is not popular with some of my colleagues, the time has come to fundamentally change the way we do things in this town. Much of the public views our ability to travel on corporate jets, often accompanied by lobbyists, while only reimbursing the first-class rate, as a huge loophole in the current gift rules. And they are right--it is. I have no doubt that the average American would love to fly around the country on very comfortable corporate-owned aircraft and only be charged the cost of a first-class ticket. It is a pretty good deal we have got going here. We need to face the fact that the time has come to end this Congressional perk.

At a time when the public is questioning our integrity, the Senate needs to more aggressively enforce its own rules. We can do this not just by making more public the work that the Senate Ethics Committee currently undertakes, but by addressing the conflict that is inherent in any body that regulates itself. That is why I am again proposing the creation of a new Office of Public Integrity with the capacity to initiate and conduct investigations, uncolored by partisan concerns and unconstrained by collegial relationships.

Finally, Mr. President, if we are truly serious about reform, we need to address what some have coined the currency of corruption--earmarks. In 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks. In 2005, there were 15,877--an increase of nearly 400 percent! But there was a little good news for 2006 solely due to the good sense that occurred unexpectedly when the Labor HHS appropriations bill was approved with almost no earmarks, an amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year for just that bill. Yet despite this first reduction in 12 years, it does not change the fact that the largest number of earmarks have still occurred in the last three years--2004, 2005, and 2006.

Now, let us consider the level of funding associated with those earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in FY 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks decreased! Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This explosion in earmarks led one lobbyist to deride the appropriations committees as favor factories. The time for us to fix this broken process is long overdue.

Mr. President, this past election, the American people sent a clear message: clean up the way business is done in our capitol. As faithful public servants, we are obligated to respond. Let us respond meaningfully, to assure the American people that we are here promoting the interests of main street over that of K Street, and that we are more interested in public service than the perks and privileges offered us. Let us also remind ourselves that we came here in the sincere belief that public service is a noble calling, a reward unto itself.

I therefore urge my colleagues in joining me on this bill. I think our Nation and this venerable institution will be all the better for it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Snowe, Biden, and Lieberman in introducing the Rail Security Act of 2007. This legislation is nearly identical to the rail security measures approved by the Senate during both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has yet to act

on rail security legislation. I remain hopeful that rail security will be made a top priority for the 110th Congress.

We have taken important steps and expended considerable resources to secure the homeland since 9/11. I think all would agree that air travel is safer than it was five years ago. And, we have worked to address port security in a comprehensive manner. However, we need to do more to better secure other transportation modes, a fact well documented by the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security in recent years. As a result, our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

The Rail Security Act would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion dollars 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 intercity passengers each workday. The legislation would also establish a grant program to encourage security enhancements by the freight railroads, Amtrak, shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with responsibility for passenger stations. It would help to address identified security weaknesses in a manner that also seeks to protect the taxpayers' interests.

As we continue fight the War on Terror, we need to do all we can to address our vulnerabilities. We have witnessed the tragic attacks on rail systems in other countries, including the cities of London, Mumbai and Madrid, and the devastating consequences of those attacks. It is essential that we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack, and this legislation will help to do just that.

As I mentioned earlier, the Senate has consistently supported legislation to promote rail security. Most recently, rail security provisions were adopted last Fall as part of the port security legislation. But again, the House failed to allow these important security provisions to move ahead, and the provisions were stripped from the conference agreement. As a result, our rail network continues to remain vulnerable to terrorist attack. That is unacceptable in my judgement.

I urge the Senate to move quickly to again pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Indian Tribes Methamphetamine Reduction Grants Act of 2007. This bill is identical to S. 4113, a bipartisan measure that was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on December 8, 2006, the last day of the 109th Congress. The legislation would allow Indian tribes to be eligible for funding through the Department of Justice to eradicate the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale and manufacture in Native American communities. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Baucus, Grassley, Reid, Feinstein, and Feingold in introducing this important legislation.

The impacts of methamphetamine use on communities across the Nation are well known and cannot be overstated. Methamphetamine is the leading drug-related law enforcement problem in the country. Unfortunately, the meth crisis is affecting Indian Country most severely. Very serious concerns have been raised by the U.S. Department of Justice, States, and other non-tribal law enforcement agencies over the rapidly growing levels of methamphetamine production and trafficking on reservations with large geographic areas or tribes adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border. But because of the sovereign status of the tribes, criminals are generally not subject to state jurisdiction in many cases. As a result, local law enforcement often has no jurisdiction in Indian country, and tribal law enforcement agencies bear the brunt of most law enforcement functions.

The problem of meth in Indian country, which the National Congress of American Indians identified last year as its top priority, is ubiquitous, and has strained already overburdened law enforcement, health, social welfare, housing, and child protective and placement services on Indian reservations. Last year a former tribal judge on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and other drugs. The day before, the Navajo Nation police arrested an 81 year old grandmother, her daughter, and her granddaughter, for selling meth. One tribe in Arizona had over 60 babies born with meth in their systems. In 2005, the National Indian Housing Council expanded its training for dealing with meth in tribal housing: the average cost of decontaminating a single residence that has been used a meth lab is $10,000.

During the 109th Congress, as the Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I held hearings on this serious matter. Committee witnesses testified that the methamphetamine epidemic in Indian country has contributed to a rise in child abuse and neglect cases, among other social ills, and some tribes reported dramatic increases in suicide rates among young people linked to methamphetamine use. Following our hearings, I was pleased to work with Senators Dorgan, Sessions, Bingaman and others in improving upon our legislation to assist Indian Country in fighting this terrible drug crisis.

To avoid any potential misinterpretation of the intent of this legislation, this bill includes language developed and agreed to during the last Congress that is designed to clarify the intent of the bill. This clarifying language, provided in section 2(a)(4) of the bill, is intended to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, the legislation does not somehow authorize a grantee state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one state, territory or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has such jurisdiction.

The legislation further clarifies that authority under the bill to award grants would have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding or denying a grant of funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe. So, for example, if a state, territory or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the state, territory or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants as permitted under this legislation. The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection, and nothing else.

The measure I am introducing today takes but a small step on the long journey toward our fight against methamphetamine. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am please to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and Scenic River. A companion measure is being introduced today by Congressman Renzi and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation.

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800's when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900's, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service (APS), one of the state's largest eclectic utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six Threatened and Endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found

eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private property owners.

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

The 109th Congress ends with many missed opportunities, and among them is the opportunity to enact necessary amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA.

IGRA has not been significantly amended since its enactment in 1988, almost 20 years ago. When IGRA was enacted, Indian gaming was a $200 million dollar industry. Today, the industry earns $23 billion a year. The industry is no longer just bingo; instead, the lion's share of revenue--at least 80 percent--is generated by what IGRA calls class III gaming; that is, slot machines and other ``Las Vegas'' style casino games. This explosive and unanticipated growth in Indian gaming has created a changed environment that cries out for modifications in the law. Yet Members of this body have blocked getting needed legislation passed. They have done so at the cost of good public policy.

During the 2 years that I have served as chairman and Senator Dorgan has served as vice chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, we held seven hearings on Indian gaming. After four of those hearings and based on testimony received, in November 2005, we introduced S. 2078. After the bill's introduction, we held three more hearings to continue oversight over the Indian gaming industry. These hearings revealed, among other things, that a court decision had decimated the Federal regulatory agency's authority and that, meanwhile, new large Indian casinos were threatening to appear in all areas of the country. Based on the hearings and responses from interested parties, I offered a substitute amendment, which was successfully reported out of committee with bipartisan support. However, when we sought unanimous consent for passage of the bill, holds were placed on it. These holds were placed by Senators with concerns that the bill was not restrictive enough and by those who thought it too restrictive. Understandably, these concerns were mostly prompted by constituent interests. We then worked in a bipartisan effort to modify the bill to answer our colleagues' concerns while balancing the need to provide real oversight over the industry. Some of our Members' constituents, however, simply do not want Federal oversight. Some took the position that there must be no change in IGRA because opening up IGRA would send a signal that Indian gaming was not perfect and no one was to speak that truth. It seems that these people assumed that ignoring the problems is a better policy than confronting them.

And there are problems. Through S. 2078, I sought to confront these problems while at the same time honoring the rights of Indian tribes to conduct gaming, a right guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the California v. Cabazon decision. I will continue to believe that effective regulation--including effective Federal regulation--of Indian gaming is critical to tribes' continued success.

A critical problem we have left unsolved is the hole left in regulation of class III gaming; that is, slots and other casino games. On August 24, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision in Colorado River Indian Tribes v. NIGC, ``CRIT'', ruling that the National Indian Gaming Commission, NIGC, did not have jurisdiction to issue class III Minimum Internal Controls Standards, MICS. That ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in October of this year.

Until the court's decision, the NIGC had been regulating class III gaming through MICS since 1999. The regulations applied both to class II gaming--that is, bingo and games similar to bingo--and to class III--gaming including slot machines and table games--which represents the source of four-fifths of all revenue in Indian gaming. Following the CRIT decision, however, tribes have increasingly challenged NIGC's authority to issue or enforce the MICS over class III gaming. This leaves Federal oversight only over class II gaming, which is a small-- and with increasing numbers of States entering into compacts, a diminishing--source of Indian gaming revenue. It leaves class III regulation up to the terms of the compacts negotiated between tribes and States. But States' roles in regulating and enforcing class III regulation varies widely among State-tribal compacts. While some States take a rigorous role in regulation, many simply do not have the expertise or resources to regulate Indian casino games. These States have typically relied on NIGC to provide regulations. As a result of the CRIT decision, however, tribes are increasingly refusing to allow for NIGC access to or oversight of their gaming facilities. These tribes are, in effect, now free to regulate themselves.

I do not believe that self-regulation without oversight is real regulation. By failing to enact legislation that overturns the CRIT decision, we have left the lion's share of a huge industry in its own hands. This is not a small matter. Indian gaming in 2006 is a nationwide industry. More than 220 tribes operate gaming facilities throughout the United States, from Connecticut to California. Indian gaming is no longer simple bingo parlors on rural Indian reservations. For a nationwide industry that generated $23 billion dollars a year and is growing, uniform Federal standards are necessary and vigorous enforcement of those standards are imperative to making sure that the money that customers put into Indian gaming machines finds its way safely from the casinos to the tribal governments, which through IGRA are directed to use the money to strengthen the social and economic fabric of their tribes. The failure of this Senate to pass this bill will leave Indian gaming radically less protected than it was before the 109th Congress convened and the CRIT decision was issued. What we have now is the triumph of individual self-interests over the public good and it sorrows me to leave Indian gaming in that condition.

Failure to pass this bill also leaves a well-documented hole in Federal oversight of gaming contracts. While the NIGC has told us that management contracts are not the only source of overreaching by contractors, we have left the agency with the authority to approve or disapprove only management contracts. Similarly, while we all know that Indian gaming is spreading beyond the confines of reservations, by not passing this bill, we have also failed to amend IGRA to limit ``off- reservation'' gaming and the growth of casinos where local people could never have foreseen their arrival. In 1988, when we first enacted IGRA, we provided a general prohibition against conducting gaming on land acquired after 1988; in the interest of fairness, several exceptions to this ban were provided. Unfortunately, exploitation of these exceptions, not anticipated in 1988, has led to a burgeoning practice by unscrupulous developers seeking to profit off Indian tribes desperate for economic development.

S. 2078 would have eliminated the ability of tribes to establish casinos outside of their reservations and provided a process whereby local communities can voice their concerns regarding impacts of casino development. Finally, it would have prevented attempts to create reservation land, specifically for casinos, through so-called land claims unless Congress actually approved legislation to that effect.

It is my hope that the next Congress will leave Indian gaming better regulated and more responsive to present-day realities than this Congress has left it. This is my hope for tribal members, who depend on honestly tracked revenue from gaming establishments for their government services. This is my hope for local communities who are facing the prospect of huge casinos in their hometowns where they could never have anticipated them. I am hopeful that we will choose to put the good of the American people above special interests.

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I rise today to speak in vigorous support of S.1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, a bill I introduced in July 2005, with Senator Dorgan as an original co-sponsor, to address a broad range of Indian trust asset issues and trust management policies and practices. As introduced, this bill was intended only as a starting point for an extended dialogue with interested parties in Indian country and in the Government that would lead us, eventually, to legislation that brings real and lasting improvements in the way Indian trust assets are managed and that resolves the 10-year old class action lawsuit against the United States known as Cobell v. Kempthorne. I want to begin by extending my thanks and great appreciation to Senator Dorgan, who is vice-chairman of the committee and will soon be its chairman in the 110th Congress, for the extraordinary, tireless effort that he and his staff have made in working on this bill over the course of the past 2 years. In accordance with a long-standing tradition of bipartisanship within the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Dorgan and his staff have worked hand-in-hand with me and my staff in our attempt to reform the way in which Indian trust lands and resources are managed and to settle the Cobell lawsuit.

By no means did trust reform begin with this bill. I myself have introduced similar legislation in prior Congresses, including S. 1459 in the 108th Congress; in 2004 the Congress enacted the Indian Probate Reform Act, which brought significant reforms to the laws applicable to the probate of individual Indian trust and restricted land; and 10 years before that the American Indian Trust

Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 was enacted into law, which, among other things, created the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. While I truly believe that as a result of these and other enactments, and reform initiatives within the Department of the Interior--in part in response to court orders in the Cobell case--there have been improvements in at least some areas of trust management, we still have a very long way to go before the business of Indian trust reform is complete.

I will not even try to recount here the difficult history of the relationship between the United States and its native peoples. But I am pleased to say that the past 25 years have brought significant advancements in the lives of many Indian people as a result of better access to education, health care and housing, and because of economic development in some parts of Indian Country. However, there are still many unacceptable disparities between conditions in many Indian communities and those of non-Indian communities in this country. S. 1439 represents an attempt to address one particular component that affects the economic well-being of many Indian people: the way in which Indian trust and restricted assets--land, minerals, water, timber, crops, and the revenues derived from these resources--are managed by the United States.

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 had become the general Federal Indian policy in the 1880s, was one of several federal ``experiments'' in Indian matters that have had regrettable results both for the Indian tribes 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 dozens, often hundreds and in some cases even over a thousand different individual Indian owners. This fractionation of ownership has led to a proliferation of individual Indian money accounts, ``IIM accounts'', which now number in the hundreds of thousands of separate accounts and many of which have very small balances and annual income, all of which the Federal Government has a trust obligation to track and manage--at considerable expense.

The staggering number of tiny fractionated interests--along with decades of mismanagement on the part of Government officials-- contributed to the conditions that led to the filing of the Cobell class action here in the District of Columbia. A lot has happened in that litigation since it was filed 10 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 trust lands and funds.

Between 1993 and 2006, the Committee on Indian Affairs has held at least 17 hearings on the matter of Indian trust reform or reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1994, Congress passed into law the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 4001, et seq., to reform the management of Indian assets, accounts, and resources held in trust and managed by the United States. The 1994 Act was not the final word on trust reform, even in the limited context of Indian trust funds management. Two years after that Act was passed, a class action based in part on the requirements of the Act was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: the case of Cobell v. Babbitt--redesignated Cobell v. Norton with the appointment of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior, and again Cobell v. Kempthorne with the appointment of Dirk Kempthorne as Secretary.

In November 2001, in response to the Cobell litigation, the Department of Interior submitted a reprogramming request to the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior and Related Agencies to establish a new ``Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management'', BITAM, within the Department to be administered by a new appointed official, an ``Assistant Secretary--Indian Trust Asset Management.''

The BITAM proposal was very poorly received by Indian country, and soon thereafter the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies asked the Department to resubmit its reprogramming request at a later date pending further consultation and further review of the management and organization of the Department's trust program.

Over the course of 2002, the Department convened and participated in a series of consultations and other meetings with Tribal officials and representatives across the country to discuss Indian trust asset management and reform. The principal mechanism for this consultation was a ``Joint Tribal Leader/Department of Interior Task Force on Trust Reform'' composed of Tribal leaders from around the country and Department officials. The joint task force reviewed and documented trust asset management functions and processes at all levels within the Bureau, and eventually identified numerous features of the Bureau's trust system and organization that required reform. The joint task force also studied several restructuring proposals developed by Indian tribes around the country.

Ultimately, the joint task force reached an agreement in principle on a restructuring proposal that would create a new position of Under Secretary for Indian Affairs. The Under Secretary would report directly to the Secretary of Interior and have authority over all aspects of Indian affairs within the Department, including the management of tribal and individual Indian trust assets, including both financial and natural resource trust assets. Under this proposal, the Office of the Special Trustee would eventually be phased out. However, although Tribal leaders and Department officials on the task force also reached agreement on other significant matters relating to trust reform and restructuring, they were unable to agree on certain key elements of the legislative proposal. In October of 2002, the joint task force was disbanded.

Mr. President, I wish I could say that our efforts in the 109th Congress bridged all of the gaps between the Government, the tribes and individual Indians, but I cannot. That does not mean that we did not make significant progress. In the course of the past 18 to 20 months all parties have acquired a much better understanding of the issues and of each other's positions. The Committee and its staff have also acquired a better understanding and appreciation of the issues as well. Again, I want to thank Senator Dorgan for his insights, efforts, and commitment of time and staff in this truly bi-partisan effort. The majority and minority staff of the Committee on Indian Affairs met extensively with representatives of Indian tribes, tribal organizations and individual Indian organizations in an effort to get a solid understanding of what Indian country wants to get out of trust reform. The staff of both sides of the committee also met and conferred extensively with various components of the administration and representatives of the plaintiffs in the Cobell case to discuss S. 1439 and the settlement of claims in the lawsuit. I know this outreach and the information it produced will be extremely useful to this body as the Indian trust reform initiative goes forward in the 110th Congress.

One significant outcome of our efforts during this Congress is the fact that the administration made a counter-proposal in October of this year which spells out its views of what should be done to reform the management of Indian trust assets, and I am submitting a summary of that proposal along with this statement. Their proposal has four major components: consolidation of ownership of fractioned tracts within the next 10 years; a transition to beneficiary-managed ownership of trust lands within the next 10 years; resolution of tribal trust claims--in addition to individual Indian trust claims; and some limitations on the liability of the Government for claims that may arise during and after the 10 year transition period to a system of beneficiary management.

Not surprisingly, the reaction of Indian country to the administration's proposal was, for the most part, quite negative. Much of the opposition focused on the timing of the proposal: it

was made with only weeks of legislative days left in our calendar, not nearly enough time to consider, debate or even understand the far- reaching implications of the administration's ideas.

On the other hand, while many tribes and individuals criticized the proposal taken as a whole, many were not completely opposed to all aspects of the proposal and, indeed, some even agreed with certain aspects of the administration's ideas. For example, there was widespread acknowledgment that fractionated ownership of individual Indian lands has been a real, ever-worsening problem that has plagued the system for many decades--one that Indian country must confront and deal with now and not later--and that dealing with the problem will require solutions that are not altogether pleasant. And even though some commentators seemed to oppose any system of beneficiary-driven management decisions for trust lands, others recognized that the Indian tribes and Indian landowners can and will make better decisions regarding the use of their own lands than the Bureau of Indian Affairs if they are given the appropriate resources to do so. I am also submitting for the record a copy of a recent editorial that appeared in a widely read Indian periodical, Indian Country Today. The editorial suggests that certain aspects of the administration's proposals are in fact reasonable, including the idea that Indian beneficiaries will make good managers of their land, and it challenges Indian country to engage with the administration on its ideas and ``come back with an improved set of proposals based on them'' rather than just reject them out of hand.

So indeed, Mr. President, while I am disappointed that S. 1439 was not passed into law, I am also encouraged by the progress we have made in our understanding of trust management problems and in the willingness of the Indian tribes, individual Indians, representatives of the class action plaintiffs and the administration to engage in meaningful discussions on how to fix this system. I am hopeful that in the 110th Congress the Committee begins where we left off in this bill and that it will not shy away from the difficult issues of Indian trust reform.

Mr. President, I ask that the aforementioned documents be printed in the Record. The documents follow.

Newly Proposed Provisions for Senate Bill 1439 The Indian Trust Reform

Act

Senate bill 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005,

would resolve the Cobell v. Kempthorne case and make reforms

to the way the United States manages Indian trust funds and

assets. The bill was introduced in July 2005 and Committee

staffs have been meeting with representatives from the

plaintiffs, the Administration, and Indian tribes to decide

what changes, if any, should be made to the bill. This paper

highlights several proposals that have come out of some of

those discussions.

To gain support for a multi-billion dollar bill, it may be

necessary to incorporate significant changes to the

management system for Indian trust assets. As proposed, these

changes would not remove the trust status of Indian lands,

but would reallocate significant decision-making authority

and legal responsibility from the Federal government to the

Indian tribes and individuals. The proposed changes are

generally described below.

The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee have not approved

these proposed changes to S. 1439, but have asked their

respective staff to seek input from Indian Country before

they make a decision on these proposals and how to proceed

with the bill.

Land fractionation--consolidate all 128,000 individual Indian

allotments into ownership of no more than 10 individuals

per tract of land within 10 years

The highly fractionated nature of many individual Indian

lands has made it difficult for the United States to manage

these lands and the revenues generated from them. There are

currently 128,000 individual Indian allotments and 3.6

million fractionated interests. One proposal to address this

issue has been to develop aggressive mechanisms to

consolidate all allotments into 10 or fewer owners for each

tract of land within the next 10 years.

All land would remain in Indian title with individual

Indian or tribal owners.

Consolidation would include voluntary and involuntary

mechanisms, but large interest owners would have a first

opportunity to buy out the smaller interest owners would have

a first opportunity to buy out the smaller interest owners

before an entire tract is put up for sale to either the tribe

or a member of that tribe.

Consolidation of tracts with 100 or more owners would be

prioritized.

Funding for the proposed consolidation mechanisms would be

assured by inclusion in the funding levels of the bill.

Beneficiary-managed trust--transition of all individual

Indian and tribal land to a beneficiary-managed trust

system within 10 years

After fractionated lands are consolidated, it is proposed

to convert the current management system for all individual

Indian and tribal land into a new system within a 10 year

timeframe. The lands would remain in trust and not be subject

to taxation, but the individual or tribal owner of the lands

would have most of the privileges and responsibilities of

property management.

The landowners would make nearly all decisions on land use

within certain broad parameters.

All revenues generated from the land would go directly to

the landowners (direct pay).

The landowners would negotiate their own long-tern leases

and land use agreements, without Secretarial approval.

The BIA would provide ``management'' financial support and

technical assistance during a transition period to assist

owners in becoming efficient property owners and managers.

The federal government would remain responsible for:

preventing involuntary alienation of land; approving

transfers of land title; maintaining land title records; and

probating trust estates.

Resolution of tribal claims related to the mismanagement of

trust funds, lands and resources

In addition to resolving all individual Indian claims

related to the United States' mismanagement of trust funds,

lands and resources, it has been proposed to resolve all

tribal claims for the same matters. Possible suggestions for

addressing this issue include:

All mismanagement claims for tribal monies, lands, and

resources would be resolved and settled.

A settlement fund would be established and each tribe would

receive a distribution based on a formula that would take

into account the amount of land a tribe owns and the amount

of revenues that were generated from that land for a

specified period of time.

All historical accounting claims against the United States

would be settled.

Account balances for Indian trust accounts would be deemed

accurate as of the date of passage of Senate bill 1439.

The bill would not settle takings claims for land or

related resources, claims to establish the right to possess

or the ownership of tribal land, or claims arising under

Federal environmental laws.

Limitation on liability of the United States during and after

transition period

In order to facilitate the proposed reforms, it has also

been proposed that during the period of time for land

consolidation and transition of the trust management system

into a beneficiary-managed trust there would be some

limitations on the liability of the United States in regard

to the management of trust resources.

After the transition period, the Federal government would

remain responsible for correcting errors, but without damage

claims against the government for its residual

responsibilities.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Bingaman, Grassley, Smith, Baucus, Feingold, Johnson, Salazar, Wyden, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, and Cantwell in introducing and passing a bill to amend the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that Indian tribes and U.S. territories are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.

The amendments that this bill makes to section 2996(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 would make U.S. territories and Indian tribes eligible to receive grants from the Department of Justice to address the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale, and manufacture. The terrible business of methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture has impacted communities all over the country, in urban and nonurban areas alike, and our territories and Indian reservations have not been spared. This bill will make much needed resources available to territorial and tribal governments to help bring the methamphetamine epidemic under control. However, I understand there are some questions about the intent of this bill in respect to a provision in this bill.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct in his understanding of this provision.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct in his understanding of this provision as well.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this critically needed legislation.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Bingaman, Grassley, Smith, Baucus, Feingold, Johnson, Salazar, Wyden, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, and Cantwell in introducing this bill to amend the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that Indian tribes and U.S. territories are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.

The amendments that this bill makes to section 2996(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 would make U.S. territories and Indian tribes eligible to receive grants from the Department of Justice to address the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale, and manufacture. The terrible business of methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture has impacted communities all over the country, in urban and nonurban areas alike, and our territories and Indian reservations have not been spared. This bill will make much- needed resources available to territorial and tribal governments to help bring the methamphetamine epidemic under control.

Mr. President, the impacts of methamphetamine use on communities across the Nation are well known and cannot be underestimated. We have worked hard with Senator Bingaman and his staff to craft legislation that makes these critical resources for fighting methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture available to sectors on which this drug is having a devastating impact. I would also like to thank Senator Sessions for the long hours he and his staff have devoted to working with my staff and other offices interested in this bill to make this a good bill that this body can and should support.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this critically needed legislation.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2006. I am proud to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Enzi and Murkowski. This bill reflects the work of three committees of jurisdiction and countless meetings with the administration over the past four Congresses. Nevertheless, I must express my profound disappointment in seeing yet another Congress go by without passage of this critical reauthorization.

Thirty years ago, Congress first enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to meet the moral commitment and trust obligation of the United States to provide comprehensive health care to Indian people. The act was last reauthorized in 1992, and efforts on the latest reauthorization have been ongoing since the 106th Congress. Over the course of nearly 7 years and four Congresses, the Committee on Indian Affairs, along with the Committees on Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the Indian tribes, has labored to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I have been encouraged by the recent discussions with the administration on the reauthorization, however, we were simply left without sufficient time to achieve final passage.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is the fundamental statutory framework for the Indian health care system and governs nearly every aspect of Indian health care. The Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Dorgan, and I introduced the predecessor bill, S.1057, over 1 year ago to build upon that framework by updating the delivery of health services to be consistent with currently accepted health policy and practices everywhere in our great nation except Indian Country. This new iteration of the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act contained critically needed improvements including increased access to care, alternative financing for health care facilities and services, integrated programs for behavioral health, and progressive recruitment and retention programs for health professionals serving Indian communities.

Extensive work went into crafting these bills. Six years ago, a steering committee of Indian tribal leaders, after extensive consultation with the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus about the needed improvements to the Indian health care system. Bills based on this steering committee's recommendations have been introduced in the Senate since the 106th Congress, but none have been enacted.

In October, 2005, the Committee on Indian Affairs favorably reported out S. 1057. As with many bills, aspects of S. 1057 fell under the jurisdiction of other committees, and in years past, this appears to have complicated and delayed consideration. However, in the 109th Congress S.1057 was reviewed and debated by the Senate Committees on Indian Affairs, Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We worked closely with those committees to advance and improve upon the reauthorization legislation.

In July, 2005, the HELP Committee reached out to us and we held a joint hearing on S.1057. The HELP Committee worked diligently with us to improve upon and advance that bill. In addition, despite last minute delays by the Department of Health and Human Services, on June 8, 2006, the Finance Committee unanimously reported the amendments to the Social Security Act that were needed to effectively implement S. 1057.

However, when we sought consideration of the bill on the floor, additional concerns were raised about the bill, even after it had been considered by the committees of jurisdiction and after years of discussion with the administration. These concerns prevented the Senate from considering S.1057 prior to its recess on September 29, 2006.

I have not been averse to a constructive dialogue aimed at improving the measure introduced, but I am deeply concerned about the repeated delays in passing this legislation and the seemingly unending series of obstacles thrown in the way of getting this business done. The committee has held at least nine hearings on the reauthorization since the 106th Congress, conducted extensive negotiations with the administration, and provided ample opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue from all interested parties. We have demonstrated our willingness to accommodate any reasonable concerns, even when raised belatedly as they so often have been, without compromising congressional oversight, and the quality, accessibility and flexibility for the Indian health programs deserved by Indian people. Nevertheless, we could not reach a final resolution to some provisions which would in our view have regressed from current law and good health policy.

Therefore, Senator Enzi and I decided to introduce this bill, which reflects the reasonable compromises we have agreed to with the administration. Specifically, to address concerns raised by the Department of Justice, this bill protects the United States from unnecessary lawsuits, while at the same time insuring that Indian patients receiving health care in IHS or tribal facilities, or in home- or community-based settings, will have the quality of care they deserve.

I believe that it is extremely important to remember, when looking at this bill, that improving, rather than regressing from, current law and policy is particularly important in light of studies which drive home the desperate need for improving the Indian health care system. For example, a Government Accountability Office report issued in August, 2005 documented the lower life expectancies and substantially higher disease rates among Indians, and found that health care services were not always available for Indian people. The GAO further reported that the treatment delays or service gaps could exacerbate the severity of Indian patients' conditions and create a need for more intensive treatment.

These findings should concern Congress. We retain the ultimate authority

and responsibility to deal with Indian tribes and provide oversight of the Federal agencies which discharge the responsibilities outlined in our laws. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that the Indian health care system is updated to accommodate practices that have become a part of the mainstream health care industry.

This concern and commitment was evident in the work of many Members of the Senate. We are very pleased that Senator Murkowski has joined us in the introduction of this bill. I want to thank Senators Enzi, Grassley, Baucus, and Kennedy, for their efforts and that of their staff on this legislation. I was proud to advance a bill which reflected the bipartisan work of the multiple committees of jurisdiction. During this Congress, we were joined in pushing toward passage by other Senators and I want to thank, in particular, Senators Burns, Crapo, Bingaman, and Senator Domenici, who has long supported Indian health and has been instrumental in advancing the bill. Finally, I express special thanks to Senator Dorgan and his staff for their unwavering support and unstinted efforts on the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

At the end of this Congress I relinquish the chair of the committee knowing that there is much work to do for Indian health. However, I am confident that Senator Dorgan will continue these efforts, and I look forward to working with him on these and other Indian issues. I ask consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Bingaman, Grassley, Smith, Baucus, Feingold, Johnson, Salazar, Wyden, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, and Cantwell in introducing and passing a bill to amend the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that Indian tribes and U.S. territories are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.

The amendments that this bill makes to section 2996(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 would make U.S. territories and Indian tribes eligible to receive grants from the Department of Justice to address the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale, and manufacture. The terrible business of methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture has impacted communities all over the country, in urban and nonurban areas alike, and our territories and Indian reservations have not been spared. This bill will make much needed resources available to territorial and tribal governments to help bring the methamphetamine epidemic under control. However, I understand there are some questions about the intent of this bill in respect to a provision in this bill.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct in his understanding of this provision.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct in his understanding of this provision as well.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this critically needed legislation.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Bingaman, Grassley, Smith, Baucus, Feingold, Johnson, Salazar, Wyden, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, and Cantwell in introducing this bill to amend the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that Indian tribes and U.S. territories are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.

The amendments that this bill makes to section 2996(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 would make U.S. territories and Indian tribes eligible to receive grants from the Department of Justice to address the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale, and manufacture. The terrible business of methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture has impacted communities all over the country, in urban and nonurban areas alike, and our territories and Indian reservations have not been spared. This bill will make much- needed resources available to territorial and tribal governments to help bring the methamphetamine epidemic under control.

Mr. President, the impacts of methamphetamine use on communities across the Nation are well known and cannot be underestimated. We have worked hard with Senator Bingaman and his staff to craft legislation that makes these critical resources for fighting methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture available to sectors on which this drug is having a devastating impact. I would also like to thank Senator Sessions for the long hours he and his staff have devoted to working with my staff and other offices interested in this bill to make this a good bill that this body can and should support.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this critically needed legislation.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2006. I am proud to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Enzi and Murkowski. This bill reflects the work of three committees of jurisdiction and countless meetings with the administration over the past four Congresses. Nevertheless, I must express my profound disappointment in seeing yet another Congress go by without passage of this critical reauthorization.

Thirty years ago, Congress first enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to meet the moral commitment and trust obligation of the United States to provide comprehensive health care to Indian people. The act was last reauthorized in 1992, and efforts on the latest reauthorization have been ongoing since the 106th Congress. Over the course of nearly 7 years and four Congresses, the Committee on Indian Affairs, along with the Committees on Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the Indian tribes, has labored to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I have been encouraged by the recent discussions with the administration on the reauthorization, however, we were simply left without sufficient time to achieve final passage.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is the fundamental statutory framework for the Indian health care system and governs nearly every aspect of Indian health care. The Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Dorgan, and I introduced the predecessor bill, S.1057, over 1 year ago to build upon that framework by updating the delivery of health services to be consistent with currently accepted health policy and practices everywhere in our great nation except Indian Country. This new iteration of the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act contained critically needed improvements including increased access to care, alternative financing for health care facilities and services, integrated programs for behavioral health, and progressive recruitment and retention programs for health professionals serving Indian communities.

Extensive work went into crafting these bills. Six years ago, a steering committee of Indian tribal leaders, after extensive consultation with the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus about the needed improvements to the Indian health care system. Bills based on this steering committee's recommendations have been introduced in the Senate since the 106th Congress, but none have been enacted.

In October, 2005, the Committee on Indian Affairs favorably reported out S. 1057. As with many bills, aspects of S. 1057 fell under the jurisdiction of other committees, and in years past, this appears to have complicated and delayed consideration. However, in the 109th Congress S.1057 was reviewed and debated by the Senate Committees on Indian Affairs, Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We worked closely with those committees to advance and improve upon the reauthorization legislation.

In July, 2005, the HELP Committee reached out to us and we held a joint hearing on S.1057. The HELP Committee worked diligently with us to improve upon and advance that bill. In addition, despite last minute delays by the Department of Health and Human Services, on June 8, 2006, the Finance Committee unanimously reported the amendments to the Social Security Act that were needed to effectively implement S. 1057.

However, when we sought consideration of the bill on the floor, additional concerns were raised about the bill, even after it had been considered by the committees of jurisdiction and after years of discussion with the administration. These concerns prevented the Senate from considering S.1057 prior to its recess on September 29, 2006.

I have not been averse to a constructive dialogue aimed at improving the measure introduced, but I am deeply concerned about the repeated delays in passing this legislation and the seemingly unending series of obstacles thrown in the way of getting this business done. The committee has held at least nine hearings on the reauthorization since the 106th Congress, conducted extensive negotiations with the administration, and provided ample opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue from all interested parties. We have demonstrated our willingness to accommodate any reasonable concerns, even when raised belatedly as they so often have been, without compromising congressional oversight, and the quality, accessibility and flexibility for the Indian health programs deserved by Indian people. Nevertheless, we could not reach a final resolution to some provisions which would in our view have regressed from current law and good health policy.

Therefore, Senator Enzi and I decided to introduce this bill, which reflects the reasonable compromises we have agreed to with the administration. Specifically, to address concerns raised by the Department of Justice, this bill protects the United States from unnecessary lawsuits, while at the same time insuring that Indian patients receiving health care in IHS or tribal facilities, or in home- or community-based settings, will have the quality of care they deserve.

I believe that it is extremely important to remember, when looking at this bill, that improving, rather than regressing from, current law and policy is particularly important in light of studies which drive home the desperate need for improving the Indian health care system. For example, a Government Accountability Office report issued in August, 2005 documented the lower life expectancies and substantially higher disease rates among Indians, and found that health care services were not always available for Indian people. The GAO further reported that the treatment delays or service gaps could exacerbate the severity of Indian patients' conditions and create a need for more intensive treatment.

These findings should concern Congress. We retain the ultimate authority

and responsibility to deal with Indian tribes and provide oversight of the Federal agencies which discharge the responsibilities outlined in our laws. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that the Indian health care system is updated to accommodate practices that have become a part of the mainstream health care industry.

This concern and commitment was evident in the work of many Members of the Senate. We are very pleased that Senator Murkowski has joined us in the introduction of this bill. I want to thank Senators Enzi, Grassley, Baucus, and Kennedy, for their efforts and that of their staff on this legislation. I was proud to advance a bill which reflected the bipartisan work of the multiple committees of jurisdiction. During this Congress, we were joined in pushing toward passage by other Senators and I want to thank, in particular, Senators Burns, Crapo, Bingaman, and Senator Domenici, who has long supported Indian health and has been instrumental in advancing the bill. Finally, I express special thanks to Senator Dorgan and his staff for their unwavering support and unstinted efforts on the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

At the end of this Congress I relinquish the chair of the committee knowing that there is much work to do for Indian health. However, I am confident that Senator Dorgan will continue these efforts, and I look forward to working with him on these and other Indian issues. I ask consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4766, the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006, which was passed by the House of Representatives on September 27, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. This legislation reauthorizes the Native American Programs Act of 1974 through the year 2012 and provides a grant program to ensure the survival and vitality of Native-American languages through such programs as language nests, survival schools, and language restoration programs, in addition to programs currently funded by the ANA grants for language preservation. I am asking the Senate to pass the bill as passed by the House of Representatives. However, I understand that Dr. Coburn has a question about the intent of this bill in respect to a particular matter and would like to engage in a colloquy for the purpose of clarifying that intent.

The Senator from Oklahoma is correct. That is the intent of the bill.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate briefly turned to H.R. 5384, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2007. This bill appropriates about $98 billion in spending, an amount that is approximately $4.9 billion over the administration's budget request, and $4.7 billion more than the House-passed bill. Although we were unable to complete work on H.R. 5384, I want to explain my objections to the passage of this bill in its current form.

I believe that some Federal involvement is necessary to assist low- income families under the food stamp program, and that we should ensure that our farmers stay out of the red, and to this end, many of the programs under the Agriculture Department are worthwhile and I support their funding. I know that many of my colleagues have spoken before the Senate about the economic struggles of America's farmers. But as Congress looks ahead toward legislating a new farm bill in the near future, next year in fact, we once again conform to the practice of diverting taxpayer dollars into an array of special interest pork projects which have not been authorized or requested by the Administration.

Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill and accompanying report:

$3.5 million for fruit fly control in Texas, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$400,000 for codling moth research in Kerneysville, WVA, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$200,000 for research into the genetic enhancement of barley in Aberdeen, ID, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$300,000 for grass research in Burns, OR which was not in the administration's budget request.

$750,000 to the Denali Commission to improve solid waste disposal sites in Alaska, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$200,000 for the Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory to

study gaseous emissions from agriculture operations, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$100,000 to study crop pollination by bees, Logan, UT, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$600,000 for the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center in Madison, WI, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$250,000 for shellfish and salmon research, Franklin, ME, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$250,000 for the Great Lakes Aquaculture Center, Coshocton, OH, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$158,000 for cranberry research, Massachusetts.

$1.4 million for potato research (State not listed).

$453,000 for seafood safety research, Massachusetts;

$4.1 million for shrimp aquiculture research in AZ, HI, MA, MS, SC, and TX.

$780,000 for milk safety research at Pennsylvania State University, PA, which was not in the administration's budget request.

$170,000 for blackbird management in the State of Kansas, which was not in the administration's budget request.

It is worth noting what we are already doing to support our Nation's agriculture producers. Last year, Federal farm subsidies grew to more than $23 billion despite near-record farm revenue which reached $76 billion. While some of these farm programs make good fiscal sense, other have become alarmingly wasteful and counterproductive.

For example, The Washington Post recently exposed a USDA program, known as ``direct and counter-cyclical payments,'' that in 2005 paid out $1.3 billion to farmers irrespective of high or low market prices or whether they grew any crops at all. This program was intended to be a temporary subsidy that would prop up farmers during poor market conditions, but the special interests and the farm lobby convinced Congress to keep this unneeded program, which has become perhaps the most abused farm subsidy in existence.

The Washington Post also discovered that in 2002 and 2003, $635 million in drought assistance went to ranchers and dairy farmers whose livestock experienced mild or no drought at all. Thanks to strong lobbying by cattle growers, the Congress modified the payment requirements under the Livestock Compensation Program for 2002-2003, so that ranchers weren't required to prove they suffered any actual losses. So long as a the disaster was declared, the Government simply mailed checks to ranchers dependent only on the number of cattle they owned.

In an offshoot of the USDA's drought relief efforts, the Federal Government paid $34 million to compensate catfish farmers for feed they purchased during the 2002 drought year, even though feed prices were at a 10-year low. Much like the cattle program, catfish farmers were not required to prove they suffered any losses. All they had to do was tell the USDA how much feed they bought that year.

Who is at fault for this egregious waste? The farmer? The Department of Agriculture? In reality, both are the victims of bad policy. Unfortunately, the biggest victim is the taxpayer, and the blame rests with us, the Congress. Our current farm policy is riddled with waste. Yet we compound matters by furthering the out-of-control earmarking of pork.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record copies of The Washington Post articles I cited: Farm Program Pays $.13 Billion to People Who Don't Farm (July 2, 2006), No Drought Required For Federal Drought Aid (July 18, 2006), and When Feed Was Cheap, Catfish Farmers Got Help Buying It (July 18, 2006).

It is difficult to overlook the $4.5 billion disaster assistance package that appropriators have attached to this bill. None of this funding under this agricultural title is included in the administration's request, and in fact, was strongly opposed by the administration when similar provision were added to the 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. My colleagues may recall that the emergency supplemental faced a veto threat because of the billions of dollars in unrequested agriculture handouts appropriators were seeking. Fortunately these agriculture subsidies were removed in conference, and the bill was finally enacted enabling crucial funding to reach our troops overseas.

Let's take a look at some of the provisions in this latest Agriculture disaster package:

$1 billion in crop disaster assistance to compensate farmers for damage that occurred in 2005 due to weather. This also specifically applies to the Mormon cricket infestation in Nevada, and flooding in California, Hawaii and Vermont.

$13 million to help ewe lamb farmers who have suffered populations losses.

$6 million to owners of flooded crop and grazing land in North Dakota.

$6 million to assist a sugarcane transportation cooperative in Hawaii.

$100 million for grants to each State to promote specialty crop production.

$1.7 billion in assistance to dairy farmers who suffered losses in 2005.

This appropriations measure is not expected to receive any further action during this session of Congress. Instead of debating and passing our annual spending bills, our constitutional obligation, we are resorting to passing continuing resolutions to maintain our government functions well into fiscal year 2007. This failure is partially because of our habit of earmarking. When members frantically look for appropriation bills as vehicles for pet projects and unrequested earmarks, the appropriation process becomes a game of ``you vote for my pork, I'll vote for yours.'' This is the sad state of our appropriations process, when we would rather postpone funding for critical programs for our farmers, soldiers, veterans, seniors, and nearly everything until next year if it means our pork isn't included this round.

Again I want to make it clear that I support doing all that we can for the American farmer. Agriculture production is part of the backbone of our great country. However, we do more bad than good by raiding the national treasury, and, in some cases other Agriculture programs, to pay for pet projects that in many cases benefitl1l certain constituency which is not representative of the larger needs of the farming community.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006. This legislation would reduce the sexual exploitation of our children, and punish those who cause them physical and emotional harm through sex crimes.

Twenty-two years ago, President Ronald Reagan inaugurated the opening of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, known as NCMEC. At a White House ceremony, he called on the center to ``wake up America and attack the crisis of child victimization.'' Today, thanks to the efforts of NCMEC and many others in the public and private sectors, America is more conscious of the dangers of child exploitation, but our children still face significant threats from those who see their innocence as an opportunity to do harm. The continuing victimization of our children is readily and all too painfully apparent in the resurgence of child pornography in our world.

In recent years, technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography. I say child pornography, but that label does not describe accurately what is at issue. As emphasized by a recent Department of Justice report, ``child pornography'' does not come close to describing these images, which are nothing short of recorded images of child sexual abuse. These images are, quite literally, digital evidence of violent sexual crimes perpetrated against the most vulnerable among us.

Experts are also finding that the images of child sexual exploitation produced and distributed today involve younger and younger children. As emphasized by NCMEC, 83 percent of offenders surveyed in a recent study were caught with images of children younger than 12 years old. Thirty- nine percent had images of children younger than 6. Almost 20 percent had images of children younger than 3. These are not normal criminals, and I cannot fathom the extent of the physical and emotional harm they cause their victims.

The violence of the images continues to increase as well. Dr. Sharon Cooper, a nationally recognized expert on this subject, stated before a September Senate Commerce Committee hearing that the images often depict ``sadistic gross sexual assault and sodomy.'' This view was underscored by Mike Brown, the sheriff of Bedford County, VA, and the director of the Blue Ridge Thunder Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, who also testified to his direct experience with increasingly violent and disturbing images of child sexual exploitation.

The Federal Government has in place a system for online companies such as Internet service providers to report these images to NCMEC. The center is directed by law to relay that information to Federal and State law enforcement agencies. This reporting system has been successful, but it is in need of several vital improvements.

The bill would enhance the current reporting system by expanding the range of companies obligated to report child pornography to NCMEC; stating specifically what information must be reported to the center; moving the reporting obligations into the Federal

criminal code; imposing higher penalties on companies that do not report child pornography to NCMEC in the manner required by law; and providing greater legal certainty around the child pornography reporting requirement.

As suggested by NCMEC, the reporting of child pornography should be more widespread. To that end, the bill would expand and clarify the types of online companies that would be obligated to report child pornography to the center. Today, Federal law requires electronic communication service providers and providers of remote computing services to report child pornography they discover to NCMEC through the center's CyberTipline. However, what types of companies fall into each category is sometimes unclear. To better define and expand the types of online companies obligated to report child pornography, the legislation would require a broad range of online service providers--including Web hosting companies, domain name registrars, and social networking sites--to report child pornography to NCMEC.

Another weakness in the current reporting system is that the law does not say exactly what information should be reported to NCMEC. This failure to set forth specific reporting requirements makes the current statute both difficult to comply with and tough to enforce, and this omission may have led to less effective prosecution of child pornographers. According to testimony submitted by the center to the Senate Commerce Committee, ``because there are no guidelines for the contents of these reports, some [companies] do not send customer information that allows NCMEC to identify a law enforcement jurisdiction. So potentially valuable investigative leads are left to sit in the CyberTipline database with no action taken.'' This is unacceptable.

The bill would cure this problem by requiring that reporting companies convey to the center a defined set of information, which is in large part the information that is provided to NCMEC today by the Nation's leading Internet service providers. Among other things, the bill would require online service providers to report specific information about the individual involved in producing, distributing, or receiving child pornography such as that individual's e-mail address. In addition, it would require reporting companies to NCMEC geographic location of the involved individual such as the individual's physical address and the IP address from which the individual connected to the Internet.

To ensure that law enforcement officials have better odds of prosecuting involved individuals, the bill would also require online service providers to preserve all data that they report to NCMEC for at least 180 days, and to not knowingly destroy any other information that they possess that relates to a child pornography incident reported to

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006. This legislation would reduce the sexual exploitation of our children, and punish those who cause them physical and emotional harm through sex crimes.

Twenty-two years ago, President Ronald Reagan inaugurated the opening of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, known as NCMEC. At a White House ceremony, he called on the center to ``wake up America and attack the crisis of child victimization.'' Today, thanks to the efforts of NCMEC and many others in the public and private sectors, America is more conscious of the dangers of child exploitation, but our children still face significant threats from those who see their innocence as an opportunity to do harm. The continuing victimization of our children is readily and all too painfully apparent in the resurgence of child pornography in our world.

In recent years, technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography. I say child pornography, but that label does not describe accurately what is at issue. As emphasized by a recent Department of Justice report, ``child pornography'' does not come close to describing these images, which are nothing short of recorded images of child sexual abuse. These images are, quite literally, digital evidence of violent sexual crimes perpetrated against the most vulnerable among us.

Experts are also finding that the images of child sexual exploitation produced and distributed today involve younger and younger children. As emphasized by NCMEC, 83 percent of offenders surveyed in a recent study were caught with images of children younger than 12 years old. Thirty- nine percent had images of children younger than 6. Almost 20 percent had images of children younger than 3. These are not normal criminals, and I cannot fathom the extent of the physical and emotional harm they cause their victims.

The violence of the images continues to increase as well. Dr. Sharon Cooper, a nationally recognized expert on this subject, stated before a September Senate Commerce Committee hearing that the images often depict ``sadistic gross sexual assault and sodomy.'' This view was underscored by Mike Brown, the sheriff of Bedford County, VA, and the director of the Blue Ridge Thunder Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, who also testified to his direct experience with increasingly violent and disturbing images of child sexual exploitation.

The Federal Government has in place a system for online companies such as Internet service providers to report these images to NCMEC. The center is directed by law to relay that information to Federal and State law enforcement agencies. This reporting system has been successful, but it is in need of several vital improvements.

The bill would enhance the current reporting system by expanding the range of companies obligated to report child pornography to NCMEC; stating specifically what information must be reported to the center; moving the reporting obligations into the Federal

criminal code; imposing higher penalties on companies that do not report child pornography to NCMEC in the manner required by law; and providing greater legal certainty around the child pornography reporting requirement.

As suggested by NCMEC, the reporting of child pornography should be more widespread. To that end, the bill would expand and clarify the types of online companies that would be obligated to report child pornography to the center. Today, Federal law requires electronic communication service providers and providers of remote computing services to report child pornography they discover to NCMEC through the center's CyberTipline. However, what types of companies fall into each category is sometimes unclear. To better define and expand the types of online companies obligated to report child pornography, the legislation would require a broad range of online service providers--including Web hosting companies, domain name registrars, and social networking sites--to report child pornography to NCMEC.

Another weakness in the current reporting system is that the law does not say exactly what information should be reported to NCMEC. This failure to set forth specific reporting requirements makes the current statute both difficult to comply with and tough to enforce, and this omission may have led to less effective prosecution of child pornographers. According to testimony submitted by the center to the Senate Commerce Committee, ``because there are no guidelines for the contents of these reports, some [companies] do not send customer information that allows NCMEC to identify a law enforcement jurisdiction. So potentially valuable investigative leads are left to sit in the CyberTipline database with no action taken.'' This is unacceptable.

The bill would cure this problem by requiring that reporting companies convey to the center a defined set of information, which is in large part the information that is provided to NCMEC today by the Nation's leading Internet service providers. Among other things, the bill would require online service providers to report specific information about the individual involved in producing, distributing, or receiving child pornography such as that individual's e-mail address. In addition, it would require reporting companies to NCMEC geographic location of the involved individual such as the individual's physical address and the IP address from which the individual connected to the Internet.

To ensure that law enforcement officials have better odds of prosecuting involved individuals, the bill would also require online service providers to preserve all data that they report to NCMEC for at least 180 days, and to not knowingly destroy any other information that they possess that relates to a child pornography incident reported to

Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senate concerning the legislation before us, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. This bill is particularly important in this time of ongoing war, structural changes in the force, and an aging veteran population. The committee has worked to produce a bill that, while imperfect, addresses many of the issues that challenge our armed services and veterans, and I thank them for their work.

America remains at war, a war that continues to unite Americans in pursuit of a common goal--to defeat terrorism. Americans have and will continue to make sacrifices for this war. Our service men and women in particular are truly on the front lines in this war, separated from their families, risking their lives, and working extraordinarily long hours under the most difficult conditions to accomplish the ambitious but necessary task their country has set for them.

It is important that we understand the context of this year's military construction legislation. Three processes are playing out simultaneously that require reasoned and appropriate congressional action on this bill. First, America's struggle for peace in Iraq continues. Second, our largest service, the Army, is undertaking significant structural changes and redeploying thousands of troops. Third, the recent round of base realignment and closure that streamlined the defense infrastructure is now being implemented. These three issues have defined the requirements of the legislation before us. The committee has recognized the challenges and outlined military construction spending that, in large part, meets them.

I am pleased to note that the Appropriations Committee has met the spending level requested by the administration for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is particularly important in light of the growing numbers of young veterans who look to the VA for care. To date more than 184,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have sought care through the VA. Of that number, 30,000 have been found to exhibit symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress or PTSD, and I applaud the committee's support for PTSD programs and funding. This legislation also provides $32.7 billion for the Veterans Health Administration for fiscal year 2007, nearly equivalent to the President's request.

I commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies for her willingness to work with the Senate Armed Services Committee, SASC, to ensure this bill generally funds MILCON projects consistent with the authorizing committee's views. The chairman has always made a considerable effort to work with the authorizers to mitigate differences in the defense funding and authorizing bills.

In particular, I appreciate the chairman's efforts to remove an unrequested and unauthorized MILCON project for Lackland Air Force Base after I brought my concerns to her attention. That project was not requested by the administration, nor is it listed in the Air Force's Unfunded Priority List, UPL. It was added only after the Air Force Chief of Staff sought the funding outside the regular process, without the concurrence of DOD or OMB and without any notification to or feedback from the authorizing committees.

When the authoring committees finally learned about this project, we had already completed committee markups and passed Defense authorization bills in both chambers. The authorizing committees refused to add an out-of-scope provision into the final conference report to authorize this Air Force earmark, and as such, the chairman has since agreed to remove it from the pending bill in a manager's amendment on the Senate floor.

I wanted to spend time on the Senate floor to highlight this Air Force MILCON earmark because it demonstrates how authorizers and appropriators can and should work together. While ideally the provision would never have been included in the bill since it wasn't requested, the chairman was more than willing to listen to my concerns as an authorizer, and she acted most appropriately by agreeing to remove the earmark. Again, I thank Senator Hutchison for her steadfast leadership and accommodation of the authorization committees' wishes.

Unfortunately, the bill before us is not entirely free of earmarks. I am concerned that, while this bill is some $434 million below the administration's request, it nonetheless recommends almost $90 million in unrequested spending that is directed at unauthorized projects. While I recognize that many of the earmarks added to this legislation may sound worthwhile, they do not belong in the bill or its report. Needless to say, it is distressing that in this time of fiscal constraints, lawmakers continue to earmark military funds while underfunding the President's overall request.

Let me mention a few examples of money earmarked in the committee report for specific projects that were not requested by the Department of Defense: $1.5 million for a general instruction building in Fort Lewis, WA; $1.5 million for officer's quarters in Ravenna, OH; $1.5 million for a dining facility at Camp Roberts in San Miguel, CA; $3.4 million for an Aviation Readiness Center at Helena Regional Airport, MT; $1.4 million for an engine shop in Fort Worth, TX; $900,000 for an information technology complex at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH; and $2.0 million for a regional training institute in West Virginia.

Almost all the earmarked money will go to the States represented by members of the committee. These examples are only part of the nearly $60 million in unrequested earmarks that siphon funds away from important programs needed for enhancing our warfighting capability. This means that the armed services have come to us with urgent needs, and we have responded by giving them less than what they asked for while requiring that they spend it to suit our parochial needs rather than military necessity.

The problems facing our active and retired veterans, whether in the form of force structure or modernization or enhancing quality of life benefits, are properly addressed in a deliberative budget process. However, we should think twice before diverting money away from military necessities to fund home State projects. The American taxpayer expects more of us, as do our brave service men and women who are fighting this war on global terrorism on our behalf.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has agreed to pass S. 3501, a bill to amend the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act to establish an acquisition fund for the water rights and habitat acquisition program, with an amendment that I have also offered. This bill amends the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act, enacted in 2000, which ratified a negotiated settlement of the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe's water entitlement to flow from the Santa Clara River in UT.

S. 3501 was introduced to address a deficiency in the original statutory language of the Shivwits Water Rights Settlement Act. Section 10 of that Act authorized a water rights and habitat acquisition program. Congress appropriated $3 million that was authorized by Section 10. When the Department of the Interior attempted to implement the law, the Treasury Department advised that the language in Section 10 was insufficient for this purpose. The Treasury Department and Department of the Interior developed technical correction language to address this deficiency in the original statutory language. S. 3501 facilitates this correction in the Shivwits Water Rights Settlement Act.

However, subsequent to approval of this measure by the Indian Affairs Committee, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the language developed by Treasury and Interior, as reflected in S. 3501, could be interpreted to authorize an additional $3 million to the Acquisition Fund and thereby increase direct spending.

Therefore, I have offered an amendment with the bill in an effort to avoid any ambiguity in S. 3501 concerning prior appropriations for the Acquisition Fund. The amendment strikes the potentially ambiguous language in the bill, and inserts new language, to the affect, that funds transferred to the Acquisition Fund are funds made available but not expended. The technical amendment therefore avoids the possibility of any redundant appropriations, keeping S. 3501 budget neutral, as was originally intended, and fully implements Section 10 of the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Settlement Act of 2000.