Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and I send four amendments to the desk.

I thank my colleague from Virginia.

Amendments Nos. 3620 and 3621, en bloc

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Can the Senator yield to another Senator?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator from Nevada explain exactly what his motion is?

Mr. President, H.R. 3351, the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2005, was passed by the House on November 16, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Many of the provisions in the House bill have already been acted on by the Senate in various bills. I will ask the Senate to pass the bill with a substitute amendment which includes most of the provisions in the original House version of the bill as well as some amendments that were not in the House version. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

The Senate amendment to H.R. 3551 that I am offering contains the following: Section 104 is the same as S. 1484, which passed the Senate on July 26, 2005, and it amends the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Indian Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 to adjust the spending rule set forth in that act for the Tribe's Settlement Fund. The provision would authorize expenditure of 6 percent of the average market value of the Settlement fund over the preceding 3 years. Section 201 is the same as S. 706, which passed the Senate on July 26, 2005, and it authorizes the transfer of lands, now held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the benefit of the Prairie Island Indian community in Red Wing, MN. The transfer will have no effect on the tax status of the lands, nor will the Prairie Island Indian Community be permitted to develop commercial or gaming facilities on the land; section 202 authorizes various 99-year leases. Part of this section passed Senate in S. 1485 on July 26, 2005, while other provisions were contained in H.R. 3351. Section 203 addresses the problem of lack of appraisers in Indian country by providing that for purposes of obtaining agricultural loans, the market value of land is the default appraisal value. This section is the same as S. 1489, that passed the Senate on July 26, 2005. Section 301 previously passed the Senate in S. 1295 on December 12, 2005, and it authorizes the National Indian Gaming Commission to collect fees up to 0.08 percent of gross gaming revenues, and eliminates $12 million cap, and subjects NIGC to the Government Performance and Results Act. Section 401, like S. 1758, that passed the Senate on August 22, 2005, amends the Indian Financing Act of 1974 to clarify that nonprofit tribal entities are eligible for Bureau of Indian Affairs Loan Guaranty Program. In addition, because the BIA is fast reaching its $500 million limit on the amount of loans it can have outstanding, and this section will increase that number to $1.5 billion.

The four new provisions that have not passed the Senate as stand- alone measures do the following: Section 101 corrects a drafting error to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; section 102 facilitates exchanges between Alaska Regional and Village Corporations of land obtained through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act by clarifying that undeveloped land received by each Native corporation participant in the exchanges is deemed to be land conveyed under ANCSA; and section 103 will allow the State of Mississippi to pay the Mississippi Choctaw for work already preformed, through a newly established BIA Trust Fund. The final new provision is section 501, the Native American Probate Reform and Technical Amendment, described in more detail below.

Section 501 corrects drafting errors and clarifies and includes new provisions relating to amendments made by the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004, AIPRA, and S. 1481, which was enacted into law in December of 2005. One of these provisions is an amendment to 25 U.S.C. 464. In 2004, this section was amended in AIPRA so that it would conform to the new uniform Indian probate code that was the centerpiece of AIPRA; however, after reviewing the various amendments that were made by AIPRA, which was a very complex piece of legislation, we concluded that the AIPRA amendments to 25 U.S.C. 464 was drafted in a way that its execution was unclear. So in the 109th Congress, we attempted to correct this in S. 1481--P.L. 109-157, enacted on December 30, 2005, by restating section 464 as it should have read. Unfortunately, there were drafting errors in S. 1481 that were not picked up prior to its enactment. Accordingly, my substitute amendment includes a new restatement of section 464 correcting these drafting errors and conforming the statute to the new uniform Indian probate code enacted as part of AIPRA. I would like to make the point here that the purpose of the amendments restating section 464, both in S. 1481 and in the current substitute amendment to H.R. 3351, were and are intended to do nothing more than to conform the provisions in that section relating to the devise and inheritance of lands to the new uniform probate code contained in the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004. As the author of both S. 1481 and the substitute amendment, I want to make it clear

that neither measure intends to affect any of the other sorts of transactions that might otherwise be subject to section 464 or to affect in any way the application of any other Federal laws that might apply to lands that are covered by section 464.

We are also making clarifying amendments to AIPRA relating to the effective date of its amendments and to its amendments to the ``Applicable Federal Law'' provisions of section 207(g) of the Indian Land Consolidation Act. With respect to the former, the substitute includes technical amendments to the effective date section of AIPRA, section 8(b) of AIPRA, to make it clear that the amendments that were made to 25 U.S.C. 464 and 25 U.S.C. 348 are intended to take effect 1 year after the date on which the Secretary of Interior certified that notice of the AIPRA amendments had been given to Indian country in accordance with AIPRA section 8(a), and that sections 348 and 464, as they read immediately prior to the passage of AIPRA, would continue to apply until the effective date of the new amendments.

Finally, the substitute also makes some minor changes to the wording of section 207(g) of ILCA just to further clarify congressional intent that nothing in ILCA supercedes or affects the application of special laws that relate to specific Indian tribes or the allotted lands of specific tribes.

Mr. President, I am a little puzzled as to why the distinguished Democratic leader needed to come to the Senate at this time because, as he said, there is going to be a conversation between him and the majority leader in 15 minutes.

We all know where we are. We all know the obstacles we face. But we also know that people of good will need to sit down together and implement the bipartisan agreement made after a lot of labor and hard work.

All I can say is I am a little puzzled, but I still hope in 15 minutes the conversation between two individuals of good will would agree to move forward with a process. That is, obviously, the will of the majority of this Senate.

I am puzzled, but I hope the conversation that takes place in about 15 minutes between the two leaders would bear fruit and the details of what that agreement would be would, obviously, be between the two leaders.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. He has been involved in many, probably too many, conversations we have had on this issue and meetings and gatherings. It is very interesting. Everybody is expressing the same desire, yet we can't quite get there. That is hard to understand.

I would like to make one comment to my friend from Illinois about conferees. One, I am confident it will be a fair conference. Obviously, in my personal view, the Judiciary Committee will be the appropriate conference. But that is a privilege and a right and a responsibility of the majority leader. We know the way it works around here. The majority leader appoints conferees. The majority leader wants to resolve this. He doesn't want the legislation gutted or destroyed in conference. We have worked too hard to get where we are. We have to proceed, at least a little bit, in good faith, recognizing if at some point as we are moving along that confidence is not there, you can derail it at any time. You can start the procedure that we have been in for the last 9 or 10 days. That seems to me the right thing to do, and I hope the discussion between the two leaders in 10 minutes will yield us an agreement to move forward.

The Kyl-Cornyn amendment has been pending for 10 days. We have on your side Senator Dorgan who feels strongly about his amendment, and so does the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson. Those are issues we could work through and then see the end of the tunnel. We all know what happens. I think we are down to something like 20 amendments on our side, and it would probably be less than that. But there are only so many major issues associated with this bill.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for his cooperation and his efforts to bring this process forward. I think any objective observer would argue that it is time we move forward with the process. As the Senator from Illinois said, it is almost too late.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is well known that there are a number of Senators who have been engaged in active negotiations and are trying to come to an agreement so that we could get this very difficult and challenging issue behind us. There are Senators Graham, Martinez, Domenici, Brownback, Hagel, and Specter, who led the legislation through the Judiciary Committee, and Senators Gregg, Obama, Salazar, Durbin, and especially Senator Kennedy. We have all been involved in negotiations and discussions morning, noon, and night, as have our staffs, as well as various outside groups. We are always very close to agreement. I cannot say we are going to reach agreement, but it is not for lack of knowledge, expertise, or dedication in trying to solve this issue.

Senator Frist has encouraged us. We have met with him constantly and he has offered his encouragement as a leader and we are grateful for that. We are close. If we can reach an agreement, I think it would have 60 votes in this body. I haven't seen an issue in recent years that has so much emotion associated with it. Nor do I know of one that probably defines the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and what kind of a nation we are.

The occupant of the chair, Senator Martinez, and Senator Salazar brought a perspective to this issue which is very valuable. Both have added life experiences on this issue. So it is not for lack of knowledge or expertise or talent, and we are very close.

But there has been a shadow on our discussions. The fact is the Senate has not moved forward with debate and amendments and votes. The Senate is supposed to do that. That is what this body is supposed to be all about. Now for a week and a half we have not been able to have a vote on a single issue. We should not be afraid to debate these issues and to vote on them. That is what we are supposed to do. We don't have to wait for cloture every time before we debate and have votes. Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn have devoted thousands of hours to this issue. They deserve a vote on their proposal. That is the way the Senate is supposed to function.

There are those on the other side who have amendments that probably would be very tough votes for those of us on this side. We are here to take tough votes. That is what we come here for--to take tough votes. I could argue, as we do maybe too often, legitimately that this is one of the greatest challenges we face in our time--securing our borders, taking 11 million people out of the shadows who are exploited every day, fulfilling the job requirements that we all know are necessary to ensure our economic future.

I want to assure the Democratic leader that those of us on this side follow the leadership of our elected leader. We cannot vote for cloture when it is proposed by the other side. The majority rules. The majority sets the agenda in the Senate. For there to be an expectation that somehow we would vote for cloture as proposed by the Democratic leader--I imagine if my friend from Nevada were in the majority, he could take great exception to the Senator from Tennessee filing cloture and then expecting the other side to follow that.

We have a short period of time. I hope as these negotiations continue--and we are close, I must say. I think my friend from Massachusetts would agree, although I must say he is very interesting to negotiate with. But I also point out that his word is good.

I hope people will listen to the Senator from Florida, who is in the chair. I hope people will listen to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, and others who can explain to us better than anyone how urgent it is that we resolve this issue. Americans are unhappy with us, in general. But this issue has aroused passion in a way that few of us have ever seen across this country. In Los Angeles, Phoenix, Arizona, and New York City, and around the Nation, it seems to me we owe every American a resolution on this issue.

Can we please move forward with amendments, start voting, and then come to a resolution of this issue. I thank both leaders for their indulgence and my colleagues for their active involvement in this issue.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Dorgan and Cantwell in introducing a bill to amend the recently passed PATRIOT Act reauthorization to ensure that Indian tribes are eligible for Federal methamphetamine-related grants. The legislation would allow tribes, like States, to receive grants to reduce the availability of meth in hot spot areas; grants for programs for drug-endangered children; and grants to address methamphetamine use by pregnant and parenting women offenders.

The scourge of methamphetamine has afflicted much of our Nation, and it has had particularly devastating effects on Indian reservations. The problem of meth in Indian country, which the National Congress of American Indians identified this 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 week 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 last year with meth in their systems. At a hearing in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee last month on child abuse, witnesses testified that methamphetamine is a significant cause of abuse and neglect of Indian children. Last year, 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. Meth is affecting every aspect of tribal life and something must be done.

The measure I am introducing today takes but a small step on the long journey toward ridding Indian country of the blight of methamphetamine. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Dorgan and Cantwell in introducing a bill to amend the recently passed PATRIOT Act reauthorization to ensure that Indian tribes are eligible for Federal methamphetamine-related grants. The legislation would allow tribes, like States, to receive grants to reduce the availability of meth in hot spot areas; grants for programs for drug-endangered children; and grants to address methamphetamine use by pregnant and parenting women offenders.

The scourge of methamphetamine has afflicted much of our Nation, and it has had particularly devastating effects on Indian reservations. The problem of meth in Indian country, which the National Congress of American Indians identified this 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 week 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 last year with meth in their systems. At a hearing in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee last month on child abuse, witnesses testified that methamphetamine is a significant cause of abuse and neglect of Indian children. Last year, 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. Meth is affecting every aspect of tribal life and something must be done.

The measure I am introducing today takes but a small step on the long journey toward ridding Indian country of the blight of methamphetamine. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, April 5, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Problem of Methamphetamine in Indian Country.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, with the agreement of the Senator from Massachusetts, to use his time and an additional 5 minutes, if necessary.

First, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for allowing me this time. Working with him on this issue has been an experience that I believe will result in benefit to the country. I appreciate the effort we have made together.

As we know, the Senate is beginning debate on a very important and complex subject that is among the most difficult and divisive we face. Our Nation's immigration system is broken. Without comprehensive immigration reform, our Nation's security will remain vulnerable. That is why we must act.

I begin by commending Chairman Specter and the members of the Judiciary Committee for the considerable effort they have taken to report a comprehensive immigration reform measure that could be considered during this debate. While I am not in agreement with each and every provision, it is a great starting point for the debate.

Those of us from border States witness every day the impact illegal immigration is having on our friends and neighbors, our county and city services, our economy, and our environment. We deal with the degradation of our lands and the demands imposed on our hospitals and other public resources. Our current system doesn't protect us from people who want to harm us. It doesn't meet the needs of our economy. It leaves too many people vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

Throughout this debate, we will be reminded that immigration is a national security issue, and it is. It is also a matter of life and death for many living along the border. We have hundreds of people flowing across our borders every day, an estimated 11 million to 12 million people living in the shadows in every State in our country. While we believe the majority are hard-working people contributing to our economy and society, we can also assume there are some people who want to do us harm hiding among the millions who have come here only in search of better lives for themselves and their families. We need new policies that will allow us to concentrate our resources on finding those who have come here for purposes more dangerous than finding a job.

Last year, when Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, Martinez, Obama, Salazar, and I worked together to develop a sensible, bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform measure, first and foremost among our priorities was to ensure our bill included strong border security and enforcement provisions. We need to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security has the resources it needs to secure our borders to the greatest extent possible. These include manpower, vehicles, and detention facilities for those apprehended. But we also need to take a 21st century approach to this 21st century problem. We need to create virtual barriers as well through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, ground sensors, cameras, vehicle barriers, advanced communications systems, and the most up-to-date security technologies available to us.

The border security provisions under the leader's bill and the Judiciary Committee's bill provide sound proposals to promote strong enforcement and should be part of any final bill. However, I do not believe the Senate should or will pass an enforcement-only bill. Our experiences with our current immigration system have proven that outdated or unrealistic laws will never be fully enforceable regardless of every conceivable border security improvement we make. Despite an increase in Border Patrol agents from 3,600 to 10,000, despite quintupling the Border Patrol budget, despite the employment of new technologies and tactics, all to enforce current immigration laws, illegal immigration drastically increased during the 1990s. While strengthening border security is an essential component of national security, it must also be accompanied by immigration reforms.

We have seen time and again that as long as there are jobs available in this country for people who live in poverty and hopelessness in other countries, these people will risk their lives to cross our borders no matter how formidable the barriers, and most will be successful. Our reforms need to reflect the reality and help us separate economic immigrants from security risks. We need to establish a temporary worker program that permits workers from other countries to the extent they are needed to fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled.

We need workers in this country. There are certain jobs Americans are simply not willing to do. For example, today in California and Arizona, food is rotting on the vine and lettuce is dying in the fields because farmers can't find workers to harvest their crops. At the same time, resorts in my own State of Arizona cannot open to capacity because there are not enough workers to clean the rooms. Restaurants are locking their doors because there is no one to serve the food or clear the dishes. We are facing a situation whereby the U.S. population does not provide the workers businesses desperately need, yet the demand for their services and products continues. The current immigration system does not adequately and lawfully address this problem. As long as this situation exists without a legal path for essential workers to enter the country, we will have desperate people illegally crossing our borders and living in the shadows of our towns, cities, and rural communities. That is not acceptable, particularly when we are fighting a war on terror.

The vast majority of individuals attempting to cross our borders do not intend to harm our country. They are coming to meet our demand for labor and earn money to feed their families. By the Border Patrol's own estimates, 99 percent of those apprehended coming across the border are doing so for work. However, the Border Patrol is overwhelmed by these individuals. They cannot possibly apprehend every crosser being smuggled in, no matter how many resources we provide. That is why any immigration legislation that passes Congress must establish a legal channel for workers to enter the United States after they have passed background checks and have secured employment. Then we can free up Federal officials to focus on those individuals intending to do harm through drug smuggling, human trafficking, and terrorism.

In addition to a temporary worker program for future immigrants, we have to address the fact that 11 to 12 million people are living in the United States illegally, most of them employed, many whose children were born here and are, therefore, American citizens. Our economy has come to depend on people whose existence in our country is furtive, whose whereabouts and activities in many cases are unknown.

I have listened to and understand the concerns of those who simply advocate sealing our borders and rounding up and deporting undocumented workers currently in residence here.

Easier said than done. I have yet to hear a single proponent of this point of view offer one realistic proposal for locating, apprehending, and returning to their countries of origin over 11 million people. How do we do that? The columnist George Will quite accurately observed that it would take 200,000 buses extending along a 1,700 mile long line to deport 11 million people. That's assuming we had the resources to locate and apprehend all 11 million, or even half that number, which we don't have and, we all know, won't ever have. And even if we could exponentially increase the money and manpower dedicated to finding and arresting undocumented workers in this country, and inventing some deportation scheme on a scale that exceeds all reality, we would, by removing these people from their jobs, damage the American economy.

Instead, what we have allowed to be in effect is a de facto amnesty, where, for all practical purposes, a permanent underclass of people live within our borders illegally, fearfully, subserviently, vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Most of these people aren't going anywhere. No matter how much we improve border security. No matter the penalties we impose on their employers. No matter how seriously they are threatened with punishment. We won't find most of them. We won't find most of their employers. There are jobs here that Americans aren't accepting, that people in other countries who have no future there will eagerly accept. They will find their way to those jobs, and employers who can't fill them any other way will employ them.

And what of those we do apprehend? Do they have children who were born here? What shall we do with these Americans--and they are Americans by virtue of their birth here--when we deport their parents? Shall we build a lot of new orphanages? Find adoptive parents for them? Deny their citizenship and ship them back, too? No, Mr. President, we'll do none of these things. We'll simply continue our de facto amnesty program. Because we all know, we aren't going to find and deport so many millions and suffer the dislocation and agonizing moral dilemmas that such an impossible task would engender. So let's be honest about that, shall we?

The opponents of our attempt to address undocumented workers in this country decry as amnesty our proposal to bring them out from their shadows and into compliance with our laws amnesty. No, Mr. President, it is not. Amnesty is, as I observed, for all practical purposes what exists today. We can pretend otherwise, but that doesn't make it so. Amnesty is simply declaring people who entered the country illegally citizens of the United States, and imposing no other requirements on them. That is not what we do, Mr. President.

Under the provisions of our legislation, undocumented workers will have incentives to declare their existence and comply with our laws. They may apply for a worker visa. They would be subjected to background checks. They must pay a substantial fine, pay their back taxes, learn English, and enroll in civic education, remain employed here for six years, and then, at the end of those six years, go to the back of the line to apply for legal permanent resident (LPR) status. I believe most undocumented workers will accept these requirements in order to escape the fear, uncertainty and vulnerability to exploitation they currently endure. And while those who have come here to do us harm won't come out of hiding to accept these conditions, we will at least be spared the Herculean task of finding and sorting through millions of people who came here simply to earn a living.

What are our opponent's alternatives? Raid and shutter businesses in every city and state in the country? Clog our courts with millions of immigration cases? Offer illegal immigrants the not too appealing opportunity to ``report to deport?'' We propose a better solution that is consistent with our country's tradition of being a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

Mr. President, we are aware of the burdens illegal immigrants impose on our cities and counties and States. Those burdens, which are a Federal responsibility, must be addressed. And we need also to face honestly the moral consequences of our current failed immigration system.

As I mentioned previously, immigration reform is a matter of life and death for some. At this moment, someone may be dying in the Arizona desert. According to border patrol statistics, 330 people died in fiscal year 2004, and that figure increased by 43 percent--to 472 deaths--in 2005. As temperatures in the deserts get higher and the desperation more tangible, we can only expect the death tolls to increase further this fiscal year.

In October of 2003, the Arizona Republic ran a story entitled ``205 Migrants Die Hard, Lonely Deaths.'' I would like to read an excerpt from that story:

[In 2003] the bodies of 205 undocumented immigrants were

found in Arizona. Official notations of their deaths are

sketchy, contained in hundreds of pages of government

reports.

Beyond the official facts, there are sometimes little

details, glimpses, of the people who died.

Maria Hernandez Perez was No. 93. She was almost 2. She had

thick brown hair and eyes the color of chocolate.

Kelia Velazquez-Gonzalez, 16, carried a Bible in her

backpack. She was No. 109.

In some cases, stories of heroism or loyalty or love

survive.

Like the Border Patrol agent who performed cardiopulmonary

resuscitation on a dead man, hoping for a miracle. Or the

group

of migrants who, with law officers and paramedics, helped

carry their dead companion out of the desert. Or the husband

who sat with his dead wife through the night.

Other stories are almost entirely lost in the desolate

stretches that separate the United States and Mexico.

Within weeks, the heat makes mummies out of men. Animals

carry off their bones and belongings. Many say their last

words to an empty sky.

John Doe, No. 143, died with a rosary encircling his neck.

His eyes were wide open.

I am hopeful that at the end of this debate in the weeks ahead, we can show the American people that we addressed a serious and urgent problem with sound judgment, honesty, common sense and compassion.

There are over 11 million people in this country illegally. They harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants, care for our children, clean our homes. They came as others before them came, to grasp the lowest rung of the American ladder of opportunity, to work the jobs others won't, and by virtue of their own industry and desire, to rise and build better lives for their families and a better America. That is our history, Mr. President. We are not a tribe. We are not an ethnic conclave. We are a Nation of immigrants, and that distinction has been essential to our greatness.

Yes, in this post 9/11 era, America must enforce its borders. There are people who wish to come here to do us harm, and we must vigilantly guard against them, spend whatever it takes, devote as much manpower to the task as necessary. But we must also find some way to separate those who have come here for the same reasons every immigrant has come here from those who are driven here by their hate for us and our ideals. We must concentrate our resources on the latter and persuade the former to come out from the shadows. We won't be able to persuade them if all we offer is a guarded escort back to the place of hopelessness and injustice that they had fled.

Why not say to those undocumented workers who are working the jobs that the rest of us refuse, come out from the shadows, earn your citizenship in this country? You broke the law to come here, so you must go to the back of the line, pay a fine, stay employed, learn our language, pay your taxes, obey our laws, and earn the right to be an American. Riayen Tejada immigrated to New York from the Dominican Republic. He came with two dreams, he said, to become an American citizen and to serve in the United States Marine Corps. He willingly accepted the obligations of American citizenship before he possessed all the rights of an American. Staff Sergeant Tejada, from Washington Heights by way of the Dominican Republic, the father of two young daughters, died in an ambush in Baghdad on May 14, 2004. He had never fulfilled his first dream to become a naturalized American citizen. But he loved this country so much that he gave his life to defend her. Right now, at this very moment, there are fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers who are not yet American citizens but who have dreamed that dream, and have risked their lives to defend it. They should make us proud, not selfish, to be Americans.

They came to grasp the lowest rung of the ladder, and they intend to rise. Let them rise. Let them rise. Let us take care to protect our country from harm, but let us not mistake the strengths of our greatness for weaknesses. We are blessed, bountiful, beautiful America--the land of hope and opportunity--the land of the immigrant's dreams. Long may she remain so.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, regular order.

I thank the Senator from Alabama. He is a man of passion and commitment and willing to stay late no matter what to make his points and advocate his positions. I always enjoy doing business with the Senator.

I want to make one comment; that the President of the United States today in Cancun made a very positive statement about what we are doing in the Senate. I am very appreciative of his comments. He said that we have to obviously put people at the back of the line that want to be citizens, but he also felt very strongly that we needed a viable guest worker program.

I am hoping over the weekend we can all think about our positions and perhaps get into some associations so that we can resolve this issue amongst everyone because it seems to have generated not only a lot of attention but a lot of controversy as well, particularly in the media.

I know we are all trying to achieve the same goal of securing our borders and at the same time resolving the issues of how people can come here and work legally if they are both qualified and needed, and, of course, addressing the issue of the 11 to 12 million people who are already here, some of them coming yesterday, some of them here 50 or 60 years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Judiciary Committee detailees and interns be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of debate on S. 2454, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006: Kenneth Cohen, George Farmakides, and Robert Newell.

Mr. President, let me begin by commending the hard work of my colleagues in this effort. The chair and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senators Collins and Lieberman, and the chair and ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senators Lott and Dodd, have worked tirelessly and in a bipartisan manner to bring a bill to the floor. I regret, however, that I find it necessary to vote against final passage of this measure because it simply doesn't do enough to address the critical need for comprehensive lobbying reform. We had a golden opportunity to institute real reform and prove to the American people that we are not completely oblivious to their concerns. Unfortunately, Mr. President, we dropped the ball.

While it does contain some good provisions to increase lobbyist disclosure and reporting requirements, the bill lacks imperative enforcement measures. We can pass all of the rules changes we want in this body, but they are useless unless we back it up with a tough enforcement mechanism. I was disappointed that the Collins-Lieberman- McCain amendment to create a Senate Office of Public Integrity was defeated yesterday. That office would have had the ability to investigate complaints of ethical violations by Senators, staff, officers of this Chamber. Headed by a Director appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate upon the joint recommendation of the majority and minority leaders, the Office of Public Integrity would investigate complaints of rules violations filed with or initiated by the office.

At a time when the public is questioning our integrity, the Senate needs to more aggressively enforce its own rules. We should 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. By rejecting the creation of a new office with the capacity to conduct and initiate investigations, and a perspective uncolored by partisan concerns or collegial relationships, we neglected to address this longstanding structural problem.

The proposed Office of Public Integrity would not only have assisted in performing existing investigative functions, but would also have been charged with approving or denying requests for travel by members and staff. Rather than prohibit official travel paid for by any entity other than the Federal Government, as some have proposed, our proposal would have required that all travel to be precleared. The purpose of this prec1earance was to ensure that the trips serve a legitimate governmental interest, and are not substantially recreational in nature. The Office of Public Integrity would have been an appropriate entity to conduct these review, but, sadly, the Senate voted to maintain the status quo.

Another critical aspect of reform that is not addressed in this bill is the ability of a Member to travel on a corporate jet and only pay the rate of a first-class plane ticket. Because cloture was invoked on this bill yesterday, Senator Santorum and I were prevented from offering an amendment that would have required Senators and their employees who use corporate or charter aircraft to pay the fair market value for that travel.

Senator Santorum and I were well aware that our amendment would not be popular with some of our colleagues, but we felt that the time had come for us 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 a 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.

There is a public perception that these lobbyist-arranged flights unduly influence Members of Congress and serve as a way for lobbyists to curry favor with legislators and their aides. We must change that perception. There was nothing in our amendment that would have prohibited a Member from using corporate aircraft. It simply required that they pay the fair market value of the flight. It was a fair, reasonable approach designed to prove to the American public that we are serious about reform and would do what is necessary to restore the public's trust. But, again, the Senate chose to maintain the status quo by preventing us from offering our amendment.

Finally, this bill does not go far enough to rein in the practice of earmarking Federal funds in the annual appropriations bills. Together with Senators Coburn, Ensign, Feingold, Kyl, DeMint, Sununu, and Graham, I was prepared to offer an amendment that would amend the Senate rules to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized appropriations, earmarks, and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports in an effort to rein in wasteful porkbarrel spending. If the point of order were successful, the objectionable provisions would be stricken and the related funding would be reduced accordingly. Once again, we were blocked from offering this amendment as well.

In my judgment, if we are really committed to addressing comprehensive lobbying reform in a meaningful and effective way, we need to include earmark reform provisions in this legislative package. The process is clearly broken when each year Congress continues to earmark billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, sometimes with little or almost no knowledge about the specifics of those earmarks by most of the Members of this body. Sadly, the scandal that has come to light recently concerning the earmarking by one former Member of the House is a pox

not just on him, but on each of us and the process that we have allowed to occur on our watch. The American public deserves better and that is what my amendment was about.

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 doesn't change the fact that the largest number of earmarks have still occurred in the last 3 years--2004, 2005, and 2006.

Now, let's 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 fiscal year 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 is wrong and disgraceful and we urgently need to make some changes in this process.

We, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. And, a democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. This bill could go so much further to balance the right of the public to know with its right to petition government; the ability of lobbyists to advocate their clients' causes with the need for truthful public discourse; and, the ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence. We can, and we must, do better than this bill.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask my colleague, isn't it true that the reason this amendment is being proposed is because the Parliamentarian looked at the present language and informed the Senator and myself that it is not clear enough language that we could actually achieve the purpose of the bill that the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Connecticut have proposed--in other words, we are in keeping with the intent of the language in the bill, and we are trying to clarify it because the Parliamentarian said that it is not clear. All we are asking, I think, is the managers of the bill to fix it so there is no doubt that we can carry out the intent of the legislation which is before this body. That is all we are talking about.

It is also true, if it is not clarified, I will tell my dear friends, you will see this amendment again. You will see it again and again. This goes to the heart of what we are trying to stop. We are trying to stop ANWR from being put into a bill that has nothing to do with it. We are trying to stop liability protection for a flu vaccine added at midnight which we have never seen before. It is an outrageous abuse of the rights of the Members of this Senate who are not members of the Appropriations Committee; is that correct?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, why would the Senators raise a point of order when this is simply a clarification of the intent of the legislation, according to the Parliamentarian who has told us--I am asking a question.

Does the Senator from Nevada see my point? There is no reason to raise a point of order if all we are doing is clarifying. We are wasting the time.

Mr. President, for a second I will discuss again what the amendment is. It requires that all earmarks included in a bill or conference report should be clearly listed--the sponsor identified, explanation, et cetera.

I fully support the intent of that requirement. However, the underlying definition of the earmark is only ``non-Federal'' at this time.

The point the Senator from Nevada is trying to make in the amendment, there are plenty of Federal pork barrel projects, if I may be so blunt. Let me give an example. The Army Corps of Engineers is clearly a Federal entity. In 2006 we spent $600,000 in the Army Corps of Engineers, a Federal entity, to study fish passage in Mud Mountain, WA; $275,000 to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from the Christina River; $7 Million for the Arctic Energy Office--guess where-- Alaska. Aren't you astonished? And $500,000 for the collection of technical and environmental data to be used to evaluate potential rehabilitation of the St. Mary's storage unit facility's Milk River project, Montana. The list goes on and on.

These are all out of a Federal entity called the Army Corps of Engineers. They should be listed. They should be in the sponsorship, they should be required to be listed, and as a Federal entity. So, clearly listed, sponsor identified, accompanied by information of the essential Government purpose of the legislation.

We are saying there are earmarks that are Federal entity as well as non-Federal entity. That is all this amendment does. It changes it from Federal to as well non-Federal.

I yield the floor.

Let me say to the Senator from Mississippi, with all respect and affection----

Mr. President, I would just amend that unanimous consent request, in case the Senator from Mississippi wants to respond to those 2 minutes, that he would have an additional 2 minutes, if he needs it.

Mr. President, I would like to respond as to why this amendment is necessary and why I do not think it is nitpicking. I think a lot of us would have liked to have known who sponsored the amendments that were put into the Defense appropriations bill by former Representative Cunningham, who is now in jail. We would have been very well illuminated by the tens of millions of dollars that were somehow put into an appropriations bill in the middle of the night that none of us had ever seen or heard of. And we did not know who was behind it until he was on trial.

It is perfectly clear--it is perfectly clear--that this is not a nitpicking amendment. The people of this country deserve to know who puts in these projects in conference in the middle of the night, as a former Congressman was able to do named Cunningham, ripping off the taxpayers of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. That is why this amendment is not nitpicking.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

I thank the Senator from Maine. I will not take all of the 10 minutes. I would like to begin by thanking her and Senator Lieberman for their very hard work and their dedication to trying to fix a problem that perhaps some of my colleagues may not be aware of, and that is our reputation as a body is suffering rather significantly in the view of the American people.

I view this amendment by the Senator from Maine as a way to help the Ethics Committee do its job because the questioning has been: Why haven't people been investigated? If you had a body that would help them determine whether a case is worthy of further investigation and pursuit or not, it seems to me it would relieve the Ethics Committee of some of the onus of making tough decisions when we are talking about our colleagues.

I was interested in the comment by the Senator from Ohio that he won't investigate until after the Abramoff thing is done by the Justice Department. The Abramoff thing would not have been investigated by the Justice Department if it had not been for the Indian Affairs investigation; and while the Justice Department began and continued the investigations, we continued our hearings on the Abramoff case. If I may say, with a bit of ego, the Indian Affairs Committee contributed quite a bit to the information they needed in order to pursue this not unprecedented but egregious case of corruption of the system, staff, and Members. Really remarkable things happened under Mr. Abramoff. So somehow we on the Indian Affairs Committee were able to have an investigation--the little, obscure Indian Affairs Committee.

But the fundamental point is that we need to restore the confidence of the American people in the way we do business. Hardly a day goes by, or at least a week, that there is not a major story about influence of special interests, wrongdoing, or certainly ethical questions that are raised. That is the kindest way that I can describe it. We need to fix the problem. So why not give this to the body of the Senate that is charged with these onerous obligations.

I sympathize with anybody who is a member of the Ethics Committee because tough decisions have to be made and most of us are friends here. That is very tough.

So why would it be harmful? And why would it not be helpful to have an Office of Public Integrity with a mission that would be carefully circumscribed, which, if they made a decision, could be overruled by a vote of the Senate, and would be helpful in clearing up sometimes a cloud of investigations such as those that characterized the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the other body where there were charges launched and there were partisan vendettas which many people called ``the criminalization of partisan differences.''

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues recognize that when our approval ratings are down around 25, 26 percent, and there are people who continue to be deeply disturbed about the way we do business--whether or not it is legitimate, the perception is out there; you can look at any public opinion poll--should we not do what we can to help fix either a real or imagined problem that we have with the people we serve?

It seems to me that an Office of Public Integrity that would recommend appropriate action taken by the Ethics Committee, not by the Office of Public Integrity such as has been recommended by this amendment, would be helpful to the Ethics Committee process, helpful in carrying out and determining whether these are partisan, unwarranted charges, or whether those are legitimate.

I want to point out again that this is a legitimate difference of opinion. The Senator from Maine and I, and others, including Senator Lieberman, have a view that this is necessary. Others think it is not. Can we calm down a little bit? This is a legitimate subject of debate on whether we need it. I hope we can discuss this, but I also believe that if you don't do this, what are we going to do? What are we going to do to try to restore some of the confidence that the American people have clearly lost in us?

Obviously, a functioning Ethics Committee, with a level of credibility with

the American people, is something I think would contribute to healing this breach that has developed between us and the people we represent.

I thank the Senator from Maine and Senator Lieberman and others for this bipartisan effort. I would like to say a word about the so-called watchdog groups. I think they do a lot of good. They have done a lot of good for this body and for this Nation. There are people who are concerned about public integrity. There are people who bring issues before us and the American people. They are legitimate. I may not agree with them all the time, but I think to view them as adversaries, frankly, in my dealings with them they have been helpful. They certainly were in various investigations in which I and my committee have been involved, and also with reform efforts in which I have been involved. I, for one, appreciate their work and the dedication they have to giving a better Government to the American people.

Again, I thank Senator Collins for her hard work, and I appreciate her efforts. I appreciate her and Senator Lieberman's bipartisan stewardship of one of the most important committees in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

I reserve the right to object.

Mr. President, if we vote cloture, there will be several important amendments that will fall, including use of corporate jets, including earmarking, which is the reason we have the abuses that we have today. I will not support cloture, and I will tell my colleagues if we do have cloture, we will revisit those issues.

There is no reason any Member of this body should pay only first- class airfare for riding a corporate jet. Earmarking is out of control, and it has become a problem with all Americans, and we need to address at least those two issues.

I hope my colleagues understand if we do invoke cloture, we will be revisiting those issues one way or another. I am disappointed that we could not address those very important aspects.

I will not object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to revise the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 in order to bring the Settlement Act process to an orderly conclusion. The 1990 Act ratified a negotiated settlement of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation's water entitlement to flow from the Verde River. The Department of the Interior provided technical assistance in crafting this legislation. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl as an original cosponsor of this bill.

As part of Water Rights settlement, Congress authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to provide the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation a no-interest loan pursuant to the Small Reclamation Project Act, in the amount of $13 million, to construct facilities for the conveyance and delivery of water to 1,584 acres on the Fort McDowell reservation. Prior to construction of the irrigation system, the Department of the Interior conducted its environmental review pursuant to NEPA. The review revealed that 227 of the acres to be irrigated were significant cultural sites and the Secretary subsequently withdrew those acres from development. The Department proposed to develop replacement lands, subject to the availability of funding. To date, however, the replacement lands have not been developed and the settlement agreement has been left uncompleted.

In October 2005, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Department of the Interior agreed that the Department's environmental mitigation responsibility for the replacement lands should be resolved through legislation. They proposed that the Department forgive and cancel Fort McDowell's obligation to repay the mandatory loan in return for the Tribe's forgiving the Department of the Interior's responsibility to develop 227 mitigation acres. The Yavapai Nation and the Department further agree that funds already advanced to the Tribe toward development of the replacement acres would be reprogrammed to fund other water development projects on the Yavapai Nation's reservation.

The bill introduced today implements the Yavapai Nation's and the Department's agreement by effectively resolving the replacement land mitigation cost for the Department and the loan repayment by the Tribe. This agreement shall constitute completion of all conditions necessary to accomplish full and final settlement. Resolution of this last remaining issue fully implements the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to revise the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 in order to bring the Settlement Act process to an orderly conclusion. The 1990 Act ratified a negotiated settlement of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation's water entitlement to flow from the Verde River. The Department of the Interior provided technical assistance in crafting this legislation. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl as an original cosponsor of this bill.

As part of Water Rights settlement, Congress authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to provide the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation a no-interest loan pursuant to the Small Reclamation Project Act, in the amount of $13 million, to construct facilities for the conveyance and delivery of water to 1,584 acres on the Fort McDowell reservation. Prior to construction of the irrigation system, the Department of the Interior conducted its environmental review pursuant to NEPA. The review revealed that 227 of the acres to be irrigated were significant cultural sites and the Secretary subsequently withdrew those acres from development. The Department proposed to develop replacement lands, subject to the availability of funding. To date, however, the replacement lands have not been developed and the settlement agreement has been left uncompleted.

In October 2005, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Department of the Interior agreed that the Department's environmental mitigation responsibility for the replacement lands should be resolved through legislation. They proposed that the Department forgive and cancel Fort McDowell's obligation to repay the mandatory loan in return for the Tribe's forgiving the Department of the Interior's responsibility to develop 227 mitigation acres. The Yavapai Nation and the Department further agree that funds already advanced to the Tribe toward development of the replacement acres would be reprogrammed to fund other water development projects on the Yavapai Nation's reservation.

The bill introduced today implements the Yavapai Nation's and the Department's agreement by effectively resolving the replacement land mitigation cost for the Department and the loan repayment by the Tribe. This agreement shall constitute completion of all conditions necessary to accomplish full and final settlement. Resolution of this last remaining issue fully implements the Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, Titles II through VI. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

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

1. S. 2078, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments.

2. S. 1899, Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act Amendments.

3. S. 2245, Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. President, in his final State of the Union Address, President Reagan stood for the last time before both Houses of Congress and asked for line-item veto authority for future Presidents.

On that evening, the President had with him three pieces of legislation: an

appropriations bill that was 1,053 pages long and weighed 14 pounds; a budget reconciliation bill that was 1,186 pages long and weighed 15 pounds; and a continuing resolution that was 1,057 pages long and weighed 14 pounds. President Reagan slammed down on the lectern the 43 pounds of paper and ink, which represented 1 trillion dollars' worth of spending. He did so to emphasize the magnitude of wasteful spending in the bills--spending that the President could not stop unless he was willing to veto each piece of legislation in its entirety. In the case of the continuing resolution, that would have meant that the Federal government would shut down.

Almost 20 years later we are in exactly the same situation we were in when President Reagan said to Congress, ``Let's help ensure our future of prosperity by giving the President a tool that, though I will not get use to use it, is one I know future Presidents of either party must have. Give the President the same authority that 43 Governors use in their States: the right to reach into massive appropriation bills, pare away the waste, and enforce budget discipline. Let's approve the line- item veto.''

Last week, President Bush rightly renewed Ronald Reagan's call for line-item veto authority by sending to Congress a legislative proposal for a form of line-item veto authority known as expedited rescission. That proposal was introduced as the Line Item Rescission Act of 2006 shortly after the President offered it. I am an original cosponsor of that legislation, which would authorize the President to propose spending and targeted tax benefits that would ultimately have to be approved by a majority of each House of Congress. The Line Item Rescission Act is one way to give the President more authority to impose fiscal restraint, and if it were enacted it would constitute a significant move in Washington, DC, towards fiscal discipline.

Today, I am introducing the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 2006 to present what I believe is a stronger approach to granting the President true line-item veto power. Under this proposal, which is crafted to ensure its constitutionality, each item of every appropriation measure and authorization measure containing new direct spending or new targeted tax benefits passed by Congress would be separately enrolled. The President would then be able to consider each item as a separate bill and would have the power to veto items that, as President Bush has said, constitute unneeded spending that reflects special interests instead of the people's interest.

We must keep in mind that even strong line-item veto authority will not solve all of our fiscal problems. We also desperately need to reform our earmarking process and our lobbying practices--and we must remember that it is ultimately Congress's responsibility to control spending. However, granting the President line-item veto authority would go a long way toward restoring credibility to a system ravaged by congressional waste and special interest pork. I look forward to the Senate's consideration of line-item veto legislation, and I trust that Congress will act on such legislation soon.