Floor Statements

Mr. President, amendment No. 3317 I submitted last night. I spoke to it at that point, but I wish to again make some comments with regard to the amendment and the need that exists in the Indian country for this additional funding.

I appreciate the passion of my friend from Iowa for Legal Services Corporation and support of that organization. But I would simply say that once again, these appropriations bills are forcing us to make decisions about what our priorities need to be.

This debate is about choosing priorities. I also say to my friend from Iowa that we are not talking about cutting Legal Services Corporation over the level they were at last year. They were at $348 million in fiscal year 2007. My amendment would still allow a $22 million increase over last year's level. It

would fund them at $370 million instead of the $390 million that is included in the base bill. So you are still talking about a 6.3-percent increase in funding for the Legal Services Corporation, so they can continue to do the work they need to do to fulfill their obligations to the American public and the American taxpayers. But what this simply does is say we have a very desperate need in Indian country, and this $20 million could go to very good use in helping us combat violent crime on our reservations.

I guess the question we come down to in these debates on appropriations--and particularly with regard to this amendment--is: Should we provide more badly needed funding to fight violent crime in Indian country or should we put additional funds into an organization that has engaged, according to the GAO and the inspector general, in wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars by providing what would be a substantial increase above the President's recommendation of $311 million and, as I said before, an increase of $42 million over the $348 million that Legal Services Corporation received in last year's appropriations bill?

This bill, the underlying base bill, provides $390 million to Legal Services Corporation. It is a program that has not been reauthorized since 1980. That is a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated for the Legal Services Corporation in fiscal year 2007, and a 20- percent increase over the recommendations that were made earlier this year in the administration's budget. That substantial increase comes at a time when the Legal Services Corporation has faced very serious questions about its management and expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

The GAO and the Office of Inspector General within the Legal Services Corporation clearly lay out the management and waste that has been going on in the LSC. As I said, my amendment is a modest decrease in the amount of spending that is reflected in the underlying bill. Instead of a $40 million increase, the Legal Services Corporation would still receive a substantial increase of $20 million under my amendment.

Again, I would say that if you look at the GAO report, it is not some dated thing. This is August of 2007. The GAO in their report, entitled ``Legal Services Corporation: Governance and Accountability Practices Need to be Modernized and Strengthened,'' noted a dozen officers and employees of the Legal Services Corporation have received compensation in excess of the statutory compensation limitation. According to the GAO and outside legal counsel, they issued an opinion last May concluding that LSC had not complied with the statutory limitation on the rate of compensation. The GAO agreed with that conclusion, and went on to state that: Without a properly designed and implemented end process for overseeing compensation, LSC remains at risk of not complying with related laws and regulations and engaging in imprudent management practices.

Now, as my friend from Iowa has noted, they are responding, as rightly they should, to address those things. But I think the question is, do you want to reward, with a 12-percent increase, a significant increase over fiscal year 2007, that kind of behavior?

We have an opportunity here again to set priorities. In my view, we have a very serious priority that needs to be dealt with on our Indian reservations in this country, which has been pointed out in any number of different stories and articles.

I have lots of personal examples I can offer from people who actually live on reservations who work in the education system. I have a letter from a superintendent from a reservation school who says: We have one school resource officer in our school system who is certified as a law enforcement officer. However, on this particular reservation, we have a total of seven BIA policemen to patrol 2.2 million acres of reservation. The response time by the BIA police department can be hours for our residents on the reservation or typically result in no response at all.

If you look at the way these cases are prosecuted on the reservation, I have another letter from a constituent who lives out there who says:

In some of these situations the people committing the

criminal activities have been caught. They have been sent to

jail, released and [are] back on the street committing more

crimes, sometimes within 24 hours of the last crime.

This principal in his letter talked about what is becoming a very deep endemic problem on reservations; that is, the increased presence of organized gangs, violence, and drugs.

There are lots of anecdotal examples I could share of the need for additional law enforcement presence. I cosponsored, along with Senator Dorgan, an amendment earlier on this bill that would increase the number of law enforcement personnel who would be on the reservations to address what is the issue of actually apprehending people when they commit crimes. What my amendment does is couples with that the other aspect, and that is making sure that when people are apprehended for committing these types of crimes, they go on to get prosecuted.

What is amazing is, if you look at the rate of prosecution on Indian reservations and how it compares with prosecutions elsewhere--there was an article recently in the Wall Street Journal that said that based on Justice Department data, only 30 percent of tribal land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted. That compares with 56 percent for all other cases. It goes on to say that one of the reasons those cases don't get prosecuted in Indian country is because Federal prosecutors have long distances involved, a lack of resources, and the cost of hauling witnesses and defendants to Federal court. As a consequence, a lot of cases are not being dealt with.

The U.S. attorney who deals with this in a very admirable way in my State of South Dakota suffers from a lack of resources to do the work that is necessary to make sure that crimes that are committed on the reservation are dealt with, and dealt with in an expeditious way.

If you look at the data--this is Justice Department data from 1992 to 2001--the average rate of violent crime among American Indians was 2\1/ 2\ times the national rate. In fact, according to one report in the Indian Country Today newspaper, Native American women are seven times more likely to be the victim of domestic violence than are other women, and more than 60 percent of Indian women will be victims of violent assault during their lifetime.

Senator Dorgan was on the Senate floor yesterday discussing this issue. He noted that one-third of Indian women will be raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime. This is unacceptable. This has to stop.

What we are simply saying with this amendment is, here is a way to address the issue. Again, we need more law enforcement personnel on the reservations, which this bill will attempt to address, as will an amendment that was offered earlier by Senator Dorgan. I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, the meth hot spots legislation, that would allow the cops made available under that legislation to be used by Indian reservations. But it is important that we get at the issue of making sure our U.S. attorneys are in a position to be able to prosecute when violent crimes are committed in Indian country. These statistics are stunning, when you look at the number of Native American women who are subject to these types of violent crimes--in many cases, sexual assault--that go unprosecuted because of a lack of resources to the Justice Department so U.S. attorneys can bring those cases in court.

I again come back to the basic premise of the amendment. It does increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation, the underlying bill does. The base bill increases it to $390 million from the $348 million level in fiscal year 2007. The administration budget actually recommended $311 million. So $311 to $390 million is about a 20-percent increase. That was over the administration's budget. It is about 12 percent in the base bill over the fiscal year 2007 level from $348 million to $390 million. What my amendment does is pares back the size of that increase by $20 million. So it will now go from $348 million in fiscal year 2007 to $370 million in fiscal year 2008. That is a better than 6-percent increase. So we are not taking away anything from Legal Services Corporation or their ability to do their job. We are simply saying a part of that substantial increase, coming at a time when the Legal Services Corporation is under tremendous scrutiny

and criticism from the Government/Accountabiilty Office, as well as from their own inspector general, it makes sense, in my view, to take those resources, those $20 million out of that particular account, apply that to giving the U.S. attorneys the resources they need to combat violent crime on our Indian reservations.

There isn't anything that works if you don't have a secure, safe environment. Public safety is the most important responsibility we have. Our Indian reservations today are suffering from a tremendous lack of enforcement of laws, a failure on the part of our Government to respond to providing security. I have talked with school superintendents and principals whose children cannot learn when they don't have a safe learning environment. That is what we are dealing with today because of a lack of law enforcement personnel and a lack of capability on behalf of the U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes committed in Indian country so that those who perpetrate those crimes are not released and back out on the street to commit further crimes.

It is a straightforward amendment: $20 million out of the Legal Services Corporation increase, a substantial increase still over what they received last year, and take that $20 million and apply it to a very desperate need that we have on our reservations to make sure we are doing our best to provide public safety so our young children in Indian country have the ability to learn, to get educated, to conduct their lives, and to create an opportunity where the economy in Indian country can grow and prosper as well. You can't do that absent public safety and security.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, in response to my colleague from Iowa, this amendment doesn't take anything away from Legal Services Corporation. They received $348 million in fiscal year 2007. This base bill proposes to increase that by $42 million, or about 12 percent, to $390 million in 2008. This isn't taking away anything they currently have. In fact, under my amendment the Legal Services Corporation gets a 6.3-percent increase over fiscal year 2007. There is nothing being taken away from anybody. There is nothing they have today that is going to be taken away. They will see a 6.3-percent increase. What this does is shift money to what, in my view, is a higher priority, and that is the need we have in Indian country for making sure that we are doing a better job of prosecuting cases and enforcing the law. We have a serious problem.

This is from the Justice Department: American Indians annually experience 7 sexual assaults per 1,000 residents compared with 3 per 1,000 among African Americans and 2 per 1,000 among whites. The statistics are in front of us. We cannot afford to allow these conditions to continue to exist at a time when we have a lot of young people coming up on Indian reservations who need access to good education, need an opportunity to achieve their dreams. You just can't do that absent public safety. What we have today in Indian country is a very serious situation. For everybody who comes into my office, this is the issue that continues to recur that they share with me. We have to address it. I believe we have a responsibility to do that.

This amendment does it in a responsible way, not by cutting anything for an organization from where it is today, but it simply reduces the increase that the Legal Services Corporation would get, from a 12- percent increase over last year's level to a 6.3-percent increase over last year's level, which seems a fair way of going about this.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to do something about law enforcement and the crime problem that exists today on America's Indian reservations. In so doing, we will improve the quality of life for our citizens who live on America's reservations and hopefully provide a safer future for their children.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, last year the Legal Services Corporation was funded at $348 million. This year the administration's budget proposed a funding level of $311 million. The base bill under consideration today funds the Legal Services Corporation at $390 million, which would be a 12-percent increase over the appropriated level in fiscal year 2007. What my amendment does is simply takes $20 million out of that increase. It still increases the Legal Services Corporation by 6.3 percent over fiscal year 2007 but takes $20 million of that proposed increase for the Legal Services Corporation and applies it to fighting violent crime on America's Indian reservations by increasing funding for our U.S. attorneys so they can prosecute crimes committed on Indian reservations.

Around the country, 56 percent of crimes that are brought to U.S. Attorney's Offices end up being prosecuted. On Indian reservations that number is 30 percent. People on Indian reservations should not have to live in fear. Public safety is something for which we have responsibility. It is important we do something to address that. This amendment will move money toward fighting crime on Indian reservations to make it safer for people who live there.

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

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding to give me an opportunity to offer this amendment. I call up amendment No. 3317 and ask unanimous consent that it be made pending.

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

Mr. President, this appropriations bill, as all appropriations bills, comes down to a matter of priorities. We have a limited amount of resources and we have to figure out where to put those limited resources to the most effective use for the taxpayers.

My amendment is very simple. It takes $20 million from an authorized program that has problems with wasteful spending and it spends that $20 million instead to give Federal prosecutors badly needed additional funding to fight violent crime in Indian country. Violent crime has become a serious problem on reservations in South Dakota and elsewhere, and I am determined to put an end to it. If our tribal communities are to have a chance to be prosperous, they must first have strong public safety.

A few weeks ago I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Dorgan to provide more law enforcement presence in Indian country. I strongly support this effort. The other part of the equation, though, is to ensure that those who have been arrested for violent crimes are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Because the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to the tribes, the task for prosecuting violent crimes in Indian country lies with our U.S. attorneys. However, our U.S. attorneys often cannot prosecute crimes because of a lack of resources. An article published last June in the Wall Street Journal by Gary Fields about crime in Indian country pointed out that Federal prosecutors often do not intervene in cases involving serious crimes due to the long distances involved, lack of resources, and the cost of hauling witnesses and defendants to Federal court. The same article goes on to say that in the past two decades, only 30 percent of tribal land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted, according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse University. That compares with 56 percent for all other cases. I ask unanimous consent that the June 12, 2007 Wall Street Journal article headlined ``Tattered Justice on U.S. Indian Reservations, Criminals Slip Through Gaps'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I hasten to add that the U.S. attorney in South Dakota is doing a fantastic job prosecuting violent crime and white-collar crime on South Dakota's Indian reservations. However, I am certain he can put more funding to good use in his office, as could every U.S. attorney prosecuting violent crime in Indian country.

The rate of violent crime in Indian country is disproportionately high. The Department of Justice reported that from 1992 to 2001, the average rate of violent crime among American Indians was 2\1/2\ times the national rate. According to one report in the Indian Country Today newspaper, Native American women are 7 times more likely to be victims of domestic violence than all other women are, and more than 60 percent of Indian women will be victims of violent assault during their lifetimes. According to the same report, nearly one-third of all Native American women will be raped. This is unacceptable.

The FBI estimates that 40 to 50 percent of Indian country violent crime is now methamphetamine related. In fact, we know that meth traffickers and dealers target Indian country jurisdictions because they believe they will not be prosecuted, even if they are apprehended. According to Chris Chaney, the BIA Deputy Director of the Office of Justice Services, meth distribution on tribal lands often occurs due to the belief that it is easier to get away with such a crime in Indian country. That is why we must dramatically ramp up prosecutions of violent crime, of meth-related violent crime in Indian country.

I offer my amendment today to help provide more resources to U.S. attorneys in Indian country to prosecute more crimes referred to them. Specifically, my amendment would provide an additional $20 million to U.S. attorneys that can only be spent to prosecute crimes under the Major Crimes Act of 1885 and the Indian country Crimes Act of 1834. The amount will be paid for by subtracting $20 million from the amount appropriated under this bill to the Legal Services Corporation.

This bill provides $390 million to the Legal Services Corporation, a program that has not been reauthorized since 1980. This is a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated to the LSC in fiscal year 2007, and a 30-percent increase above the administration's recommendation. This substantial increase comes at a time when the Legal Services Corporation has faced serious questions about its management and expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

In August, the GAO published a report entitled ``Legal Services Corporation: Governance and Accountability Practices Need to be Modernized and Strengthened.'' In the report, the GAO noted that a dozen officers and employees of the Legal Services Corporation had received compensation in excess of the statutory compensation limitation. According to the GAO, an outside legal counsel issued an opinion last May concluding that the Legal Services Corporation had not complied with the statutory limitation on the rate of compensation. The GAO agreed with that conclusion and went on to state that without a properly designed and implemented process for overseeing

compensation, the Legal Services Corporation remains at risk of not complying with related laws and regulations and engaging in imprudent management practices.

The GAO also noted in the report that:

In recent years, LSC management has engaged in practices

that may have been prevented through effective implementation

of strong ethics policies.

These practices are reported by the LSC's inspector general. The inspector general found that food costs at meetings exceeded per diem allotments by 200 percent and that LSC used funds to pay travel expenses for its president for business related to her positions with outside organizations. The inspector general also found that LSC hired acting special counsels from grant recipient organizations, causing potential conflicts of interest, and could not complete an investigation into this practice because of the failure to provide documentation required by Federal law and LSC grant agreements. The GAO concluded that:

Without the presence of a strong ethics committee providing

effective oversight in the development, implementation,

updating, and training for the code of ethics, the LSC is at

increased risk of fraud or other ethical misconduct.

I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the LSC Office of Inspector General ``Report on Certain Fiscal Practices at the Legal Services Corporation,'' dated September 25, 2006 be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. Also, I commend to my colleagues a GAO report entitled ``Legal Services Corporation Governance and Accountability Practices Need to be Modernized and Strengthened,'' dated August of 2007.

Mr. President, I do not believe an organization that has received such stinging criticism from the GAO about management practices and its handling of taxpayer dollars should be receiving such a substantial increase in funding that is reflected in the underlying bill. My amendment simply reduces a $40 million increase to a $20 million increase for the Legal Services Corporation for fiscal year 2008. That is, the Legal Services Corporation would still receive an increase under my amendment, just not nearly as substantial as originally reflected in the underlying bill.

As I said earlier, we must begin to choose priorities. Should we provide more badly needed funding to fight violent crime in Indian country or should we reward an organization that is engaged in wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars by providing a massive increase over the President's recommendation of $300 million, and a massive increase even compared to the amount of funding it received in the last fiscal year of $348 million?

I urge the Senate to join me in voting for more funding to help reduce violent crime in Indian country and to address what is a very desperate need across Indian reservations in South Dakota, and to do it in a way that is consistent, I believe, with what the priorities in this underlying bill ought to be, by paying for it with a $20 million increase, actually, that is going to be allocated this year to the Legal Services Corporation. In my judgment, in my view, that makes sense. It is an issue that needs to be addressed, and my amendment would take us down that road, coupled with the agreement that was earlier reached on the Dorgan amendment, to provide more of a law enforcement presence on Indian reservations. So I hope we can accomplish both of those objectives through the appropriations process this year, and it starts right here with adopting this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to do that. I again thank the distinguished majority leader for his patience in yielding me time to speak to this amendment.

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

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2007]

On U.S. Indian Reservations, Criminals Slip Through Gaps

(By Gary Fields)

Cherokee, N.C.--Jon Nathaniel Crowe, an American Indian,

had a long-documented history of fighting with police

officers and assaulting women. But the tribal court for the

Eastern Band of the Cherokee, under whose jurisdiction he

lives, couldn't sentence him to more than one year for any

charge. Not when he left telephone messages threatening to

kill an ex-girlfriend, not when he poured kerosene into his

wife's mouth, not when he hit her with an ax handle.

``We put him away twice for a year, that's all we could

do,'' says James Kilbourne, prosecutor for the tribe. ``Then

he got out and committed the same crime again.''

Indian tribes are officially sovereign nations within the

U.S., responsible for running services such as schools and

courts. But a tangle of federal laws and judicial precedents

has undermined much of their legal authority. As a result,

seeking justice on Indian reservations is an uneven affair.

Tribes operate their own court systems, with their own

judges and prosecutors. Sharply limited in their sentencing

powers, they are permitted to mete out maximum jail time of

only 12 months for any crime, no matter how severe. The law

also forbids tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians, even

those living on tribal land.

Federal prosecutors can intervene in serious cases, but

often don't, citing the long distances involved, lack of

resources and the cost of hauling witnesses and defendants to

federal court. In the past two decades, only 30% of tribal-

land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted,

according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse

University. That compares with 56% for all other cases. The

result: Many criminals go unpunished, or minimally so. And

their victims remain largely invisible to the court system.

The justice gap is particularly acute in domestic-violence

cases. American Indians annually experience seven sexual

assaults per 1,000 residents, compared with three per

1,000 among African-Americans and two per 1,000 among

whites, says the Justice Department. The acts are often

committed by non-Indians living on tribal land whom tribal

officials cannot touch. Local prosecutors say members of

Indian communities have such low expectations about

securing a prosecution that they often don't bother filing

a report.

``Where else do you ask: How bad is the crime, what color

are the victims and what color are the defendants?'' asks Mr.

Kilbourne, who has prosecuted cases on Cherokee lands since

2001. ``We would not allow this anywhere else except Indian

country.''

The lack of prosecutorial discretion is one of many ways in

which Indian justice has been split off from mainstream

American due process. For example, some defendants appearing

before Indian courts lack legal counsel, because federal law

doesn't require tribes to provide them with a public

defender. Although some tribes have them, others can't afford

to offer their members legal assistance. It's not unusual for

defendants to represent themselves.

The Indian Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1968,

limited to six months the sentences tribes could hand down on

any charge. At the time, tribal courts were seeing only minor

infractions. Congress increased the maximum prison sentence

to one-year in 1986, wrongly assuming that the Indian courts

would continue to handle only misdemeanor-level crimes.

Tribal offenses, meanwhile, escalated in both number and

severity, with rape, murder and kidnapping among the cases.

The Supreme Court weighed in on another level, with its

1978 Oliphant decision ruling that tribes couldn't try non-

Indian defendants in tribal courts--even if they had

committed a crime against a tribe member on the tribe's land.

In its ruling, the court held that it was assumed from the

earliest treaties that the tribes did not have jurisdiction

over non-Indians.

``If you go to Canada and rob someone, you will be tried by

Canadian authorities. That's sovereignty,'' says University

of Michigan law professor and tribal criminal-justice expert

Gavin Clarkson. ``My position is that tribes should have

criminal jurisdiction over anybody who commits a crime in

their territory. The Supreme Court screwed it all up and

Congress has never fixed it.''

Jeff Davis, an assistant U.S. Attorney in Michigan who

handles tribal-land cases, acknowledges that his hands are

often tied. Mr. Davis is also a member of North Dakota's

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. ``I've been in the U.S.

Attorney's office for 12 years, and both presidents I have

served under have made violent crime in Indian country a

priority. But because of the jurisdictional issue and

questions over who has authority and who gets to prosecute,

it is a difficult situation.''

Often cases don't rise to the level of felony Federal

crimes unless the victim has suffered a severe injury.

Federal prosecutors have limited resources and focus almost

exclusively on the most serious cases. Compounding that is

the fact that domestic-abuse cases are difficult to prove,

especially if the lone witness recants.

``It requires stitches, almost a dead body,'' says Mr.

Davis. ``It is a high standard to meet.''

For some non-Indians, tribal lands are virtual havens.

Chane Coomes, a 43-year-old white man, grew up on the Pine

Ridge Reservation in South Dakota--home to the Oglala Lakota,

near the site of the infamous 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee.

Marked by a small obelisk, the mass grave is a symbol of

unpunished violence, literally buried in the soil of the

tribe. The 2000 census documented Shannon County, which

encompasses the remote and desolate reservation, as the

second-poorest county in the U.S., with an annual per-

capita income of $6,286 at the time. Only Buffalo County,

SD, was poorer.

According to local authorities, Mr. Coomes used his home on

the reservation as a sanctuary, knowing he would be free from

the attentions of tribal prosecutors.

Tribal Police Chief James Twiss says Mr. Coomes was

suspected of dealing in small amounts of methamphetamine for

years. Tribal police also thought he might be trafficking in

stolen goods.

In 1998, Mr. Coomes assaulted a tribal elder, Woodrow

Respects Nothing, a 74-year-old decorated World War II and

Korean War veteran. Because it couldn't prosecute, the tribe

ordered Mr. Coomes off its land. But attempts to remove him

were unenforceable.

``All I could do was to escort him off the reservation,''

says tribal police officer Eugenio White Hawk, who did that

several times, the last when he spotted the banned man

hauling horses in a trailer. ``He kept coming back. After a

while I just left him alone and let it go. It was just a

waste of time.''

Mr. Coomes remained in his Shannon County home until 2006

when he was accused of beating his estranged wife in nearby

Nebraska and threatening to kill her, according to Dawes

County District Attorney Vance Haug. The crime was committed

off the reservation, and the subsequent investigation gave

state authorities official jurisdiction.

After raiding his home, they found stolen equipment as well

as 30 grams of methamphetamine and $13,000 hidden in the

bathroom, along with syringes.

Mr. Coomes is now in the Fall River County Jail charged

with possession of stolen property, grand theft and

unauthorized possession of a controlled substance. He also

faces separate charges, of assault and ``terroristic

threats'' related to his wife, in Dawes County, NE. If

convicted on the latter charges, he faces up to six years in

prison, Mr. Haug said. Mr. Coomes's attorney declined to

comment.

The jurisdictional quagmire also has implications for

Indian members on the other side of the tribal border. Gene

New Holy, an ambulance driver on Pine Ridge, had been

arrested by the tribe more than a dozen times for various

drunk-driving offenses, for which he received only two

convictions totaling about a month in a tribal jail. In state

court, four convictions would have led to a maximum sentence

of five years.

Lance Russell, the state prosecutor for Shannon County and

neighboring Fall River County, had never heard of Mr. New

Holy until Feb. 11, 2001, when Mr. New Holy got drunk at a

Fall River County bar. According to court documents, he

nearly hit one car on a main highway, forced two others into

a ditch and sideswiped a third that had pulled off the road

as Mr. New Holy approached it in the wrong lane.

The last car he hit contained three tribe members--cousins

Bart Mardinian, Anthony Mousseau and Russell Merrival--all of

whom died. The accident was less than a mile off the

reservation, enough to give Mr. Russell and the state

jurisdiction in the case. Mr. New Holy is serving 45 years in

state prison for three counts of vehicular homicide--much

longer than the 12 months per count he would have served

under tribal law. His attorney didn't return a call

seeking comment.

``The holes in the system are more practical than legal,

and the victims of crime pay the price,'' says Larry Long

III, the South Dakota attorney general. ``The crooks and the

knotheads win.''

The Eastern Band of Cherokee, located in the Smoky

Mountains of North Carolina, is one of the most efficiently

run tribes in the country. Its ancestors hid in these

mountains while Cherokee east of the Mississippi River were

forcibly moved to present-day Oklahoma, a migration known as

the ``Trail of Tears.'' Today the tribe is spread across five

counties and is economically well off: It takes in more than

$200 million annually from the Harrah's Cherokee Casino &

Hotel, which it owns, and has a robust tourist industry.

About half of the tribe's gambling spoils go to pay for

infrastructure and government services.

Its court, which is housed in a prefabricated building,

looks like any other in the U.S., except the judges wear

bright, red robes. The offices, while cramped, are modern and

computerized, and are a little over one hour's drive from the

federal prosecutor's office in Asheville. Tribal authorities

meet regularly with federal prosecutors for training. The

tribe's top jurist is a former federal prosecutor who has

regular contact with his successors.

Yet even here, the justice system works erratically. In

2005, tribal police received a tip that James Hornbuckle, 46,

an Oklahoma Cherokee who had moved to the reservation, was

dealing marijuana. Officers built a case for weeks. They

raided the business and then Mr. Hornbuckle's home, where

they found 10 kilograms of marijuana, packaged in small

bricks. By tribe standards, it was a big haul, and

authorities approached the U.S. Attorney's office.

Gretchen Shappert, U.S. Attorney for the Western District

of North Carolina, says federal sentencing guidelines for

marijuana are so lenient, that ``we'd need 50 kilograms in a

typical federal case'' to pursue it. The feds rejected the

case.

If the state court had jurisdiction to prosecute the crime,

Mr. Hornbuckle might have received a three-year term.

Instead, he pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge and was

sentenced to one year in tribal court. Recently the tribal

council voted to permanently ban him from the reservation,

with backing from the feds. Messages left for Mr.

Hornbuckle's attorney weren't returned.

Mr. Crowe's name is all too familiar on the reservation.

Tribal Police Chief Benjamin Reed has known him since he was

a juvenile. ``What I remember is his domestic-violence

incidents. He just wouldn't stop,'' Mr. Reed says.

Crystal Hicks, who dated Mr. Crowe before his marriage,

says the tribal member was verbally abusive. She says she

left him after she had a miscarriage, when he berated her for

not giving him a ride to a motorcycle gathering. ``He said I

was using the miscarriage as an excuse,'' says Ms. Hicks, 27

years old.

After that, in several telephone messages saved by Ms.

Hicks and her family, Mr. Crowe threatened to kill them and

bury Ms. Hicks in her backyard. He was jailed by the tribe

and ordered to stay away from the Hicks family.

``One year,'' says Ms. Hicks. ``He even told me he was fine

in jail. He got fed three times a day, had a place to sleep

and he wasn't going to be there long.''

After he married, the violence escalated, says Police Chief

Reed. During one incident he drove to the home Mr. Crowe

shared with his wife, Vicki. ``He had threatened her, and dug

a grave, and said no one would ever find her. We believed

him,'' Mr. Reed said. ``Just look at some of the stuff he'd

done. That girl was constantly coming down here, her face

swollen up.'' At one point, he choked his wife, poured

kerosene into her mouth and threatened to light it, police

reports say. Mr. Crowe's attorney didn't return calls seeking

comment.

None of these acts led to more than one year in jail, a

sentence he has been given twice since 2001. His criminal

file at the tribal court building fills a dozen manila

folders. There are reports of trespassing and assault

convictions, telephone harassment, threats and weapons

assaults--one for an incident when he hit his wife with an ax

handle, breaking her wrist. His latest arrest, in September,

came about a week after he finished his most recent sentence,

when he came home and beat his now-estranged wife--again.

After seven years, his crimes finally triggered federal

involvement, although almost by accident. Federal prosecutors

from around the country met at Cherokee earlier this year to

discuss crime on tribal land. One federal official mentioned

to Mr. Kilbourne, the tribal prosecutor, a new statute that

allows federal intervention where defendants have at least

two domestic-violence convictions, regardless of the crime's

seriousness.

Mr. Kilbourne, who was preparing for a new trial against

Mr. Crowe the following week, quickly turned the case over.

Mr. Crowe pleaded guilty to assault last Friday and is

awaiting sentencing.

Madam President, the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment is intended to cause the A-76 process to become so cumbersome and expensive it would effectively eliminate the ability of the Federal Government to conduct any future A-76 competitions. What it specifically does is it mandates private contractors match Government health and retirement benefits.

DOD alone has saved taxpayers over $5 billion as a result of competitions completed between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2006. DOD expects these savings to grow to over $9 billion after the completion of all planned competitions initiated in fiscal year 2007 are completed.

Right now the Government bidders win over 80 percent of the competitions. This can hardly be characterized as an unfair process, as supporters of this amendment portray it. It is designed to save taxpayer dollars. It has--$5 billion over the past 5 years.

This amendment makes it so cumbersome, by mandating the private contractors match Government health and retirement benefits, that the A-76 process will be completely undermined.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I have listened intently to much of the debate today on this SCHIP reauthorization. Let me preface my remarks by saying, first and foremost, I do support children. I like children, contrary to the implication that has come out of this debate that people who are not in favor of this particular piece of legislation are not in favor of the children. I am very much supportive and in favor of helping children. Furthermore, I also

support extending the SCHIP program. I would even support increasing funding for the SCHIP program in a way that would cover those children who are eligible but are not currently being covered.

That is a substantial number of children across the country, which is why I think it is essential if we are going to reauthorize this program, if we are going to extend this program, we do it in a way that takes into consideration there are a lot of children in America today who are eligible for the SCHIP program who are not being covered. So, frankly, I support not only extending the program but also increasing funding for the program.

We had a number of amendments that would have done that during the debate in the Senate that would have increased it substantially and, frankly, would have also, according to the CBO, covered more children than this piece of legislation we are going to vote on today.

But I have to say for a lot of us who do support extending the existing program and increasing funding to cover children who are eligible but not currently covered, this is a bridge too far because what this essentially does is, it not only expands the scale of the program, it expands the scope of the program. That is where a lot of us take issue with this legislation.

If you look at what the SCHIP program costs today, it is about $5 billion a year. It has cost us $40 billion over the course of the last 10 years. This legislation today would increase the 5-year cost to $60 billion, the 10-year cost to $121 billion. So where we are paying $5 billion a year today for the SCHIP program, this increases that to $12 billion a year, $60 billion over 5 years, or a $35 billion increase over the existing program, and $121 billion over 10 years.

Now, that again is an expansion, not just of scale but also of scope, because this covers adults, it increases the income levels that are eligible under the program that the States can incorporate up to 300 percent of the poverty level, and even allows and grandfathers in those States which have asked for waivers to go to 300 percent or 400 percent of the poverty level. So it does substantially increase or expand the scope of the program.

I think the other thing which is important and which is a concern for me in this whole debate is the fact that when you get to the year 2012, it is no longer paid for. Nobody here is disputing that fact. This is funded for the first 5 years or so of this program, but when you get to the last 5 years of the program, there is a cliff, and there isn't funding there to fund the program. In fact, the funding which is provided in the form of a cigarette tax increase actually assumes there are going to be 22 million new smokers over the course of the next 10 years. That would create a substantial number of problems for the health care system in this country and is certainly not something we want to encourage. But the reality is that when you get to 2012, you hit a cliff, and this is not paid for. It is going to have to be paid for in some form or fashion, which we all assume is going to be some substantial tax increase because it is going to be about $60 billion underfunded during the last 5 years of the program.

The other thing I will say which is, again, of great concern to me is this doesn't solve the underlying problem we have in this country. We have a health care problem in this country that needs to be addressed, that Congress needs to address head-on.

There are a lot of wonderful proposals and ideas that have been discussed, some of which have been proposed in the form of legislation, some of which have been voted on, and some of which have been defeated in the Senate.

A small business health plan, something many of us have supported for a long time, going back to my days in the House of Representatives, actually has been defeated on numerous occasions in the Senate. It is a proposal that would allow small businesses to form together, to leverage that group size they have and be able to lower the cost of health insurance coverage.

We heard my colleague from South Carolina talk earlier today about a national market for health care.

We have had suggestions, bipartisan suggestions about allowing a tax deduction that each individual could use in order to buy health insurance.

There is the proposal for a tax credit that has been offered by a couple of my colleagues on this side.

There are a lot of good ideas out there we ought to be adopting, or at least debating, and driving toward health care reform which empowers consumers in this country, which puts more people in charge of their own health care, and which allows them to have access to coverage where they own their own health care coverage and can make better and more informed decisions and get the cost of health care in this country under control. I don't believe this does that because what this legislation does is it increases government-run, Washington-controlled health care. This is an expansion of the government component of health care. It does nothing in the long run to address what is a very serious crisis in this country; that is, the need to bring reforms to our health care system.

The other thing I will say which I, frankly, take issue with as well with regard to this legislation is the fact that low-cost, efficient States such as South Dakota--and we have a 200-percent Federal poverty level in our SCHIP program in South Dakota--end up subsidizing higher costs in inefficient States. We have taxpayers in South Dakota who are covered, as I said, up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, or about $41,000 per family, who are going to end up subsidizing States that choose to exercise the option to go to a higher level. Frankly, there is no incentive for States not to go to the higher level, to go to the 300 percent, and those that already have requested waivers to go to 350 or 400, you are already talking about, in the case of 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, over $80,000 a year.

Now, what is ironic about that is the Federal Government is going to be telling people in this country that not only are you poor--in other words, you are eligible for this particular low-income health insurance program--but you are also rich, so rich that you are going to be subject to the alternative minimum tax.

I offered an amendment to the debate we had weeks ago that would have prevented those who are subject to the alternative minimum tax because under the Internal Revenue Code in this country they are considered rich--rich enough to pay the alternative minimum tax--that would have said that people who are subject to the alternative minimum tax cannot at the same time be eligible for a program that is designed to help low-income families and low-income children. That was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 42 to 57.

So there are a lot of issues with regard to this legislation that give me grave concerns, reasons that I can't support it. As I said before, an expansion of a government-run health care program in this country--it is not paid for after the year 2012--leads us toward nationalized, Washington-controlled health care and moves us away from what ultimately ought to be our goal; that is, providing access for more Americans to coverage through our market-based system in this country.

It requires that low-cost, efficient States such as my State of South Dakota are going to be subsidizing high-cost, inefficient States-- States such as in the New Jersey, New York area--that are already talking about going to 350 percent or 400 percent of the poverty level, which, as I said earlier, in the case of New York, that would get you up to where you would have those in the income level of over $80,000 a year qualifying and being eligible for a program that is designed to help low-income children and low-income families and, ironically, subjects them to the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was a tax put into place in the first place to tax people who are making too much money and not paying enough taxes. That, to me, seems to be a very conflicted message we are sending with this bill.

We need a strong, market-based health care system in this country. We need to start that debate. This debate delays that debate because we are going to be adopting legislation that increases--adds to the government-run component of health care in this country and moves us away from the debate we ought to be having, which is, how

can we improve access for more Americans to affordable health care coverage, where they can own their own coverage, where they don't have to rely on a government system that is inefficient, that is Washington- based, and that is controlled by bureaucrats here in Washington, DC?

We want to put people and patients more in control of health care. This particular bill does not do that. I will be voting no, and I urge my colleagues as well to vote no. I hope we can get to the big debate, the debate we ought to be having; that is, how do we reform the health care system in this country?

With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I object.

No, I do not. I would say to the leader, that is good for our Members to know. We have Members who have been inquiring whether they will be able to vote.

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

Mr. President, this is now day 14 of debate on the Defense authorization bill. It is day 14 of the current debate. We have all been on this bill for a good number of days previously earlier this year. During the same time that we have been debating this for the past 14 days and over the course of the several months that have languished in between our last debate on Defense authorization, we have commanders and troops in the field who have been fighting bravely our terrorist enemies and fulfilling their mission with courage and professionalism.

By contrast, we in the Senate are redebating old arguments and revoting on amendments that have previously been rejected. In fact, last week most of the amendments offered by our colleagues on the Democratic side had previously been voted on, and the result this time around was essentially the same as the result when we voted on these amendments previously. In fact, we voted now for the second and third time on arbitrary withdrawal dates, on cutting off funding for our war efforts, on changing the mission from that recommended by our commanders, and on other attempts to micromanage our war efforts from the floor of the Senate. Now we may be forced to vote on hate crimes legislation which has no relevance to or place in the Defense authorization bill.

Congress should not and Congress cannot legislate our war strategy, nor do we have the expertise or constitutional authority to micromanage the war. American generals in Iraq, not politicians in Washington, should decide how to fight this war.

I don't condemn my colleagues for a minute for their legitimate Iraq policy positions. As Senators, we have the right to offer amendments. But again, this is not the time to abandon our military efforts in Iraq or to attempt to micromanage our military strategy from thousands of miles away. The current Iraq policy debate taking place on the Defense authorization bill has already dangerously delayed this critical legislation. We all support our troops. This bill contains critical provisions that directly support our men and women in uniform.

Specifically, while we have been redebating and revoting on amendments for the second and third time, the Defense authorization bill waits for final action. What does it do? This bill directly supports our men and women in uniform. It increases the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. It provides increased authorization to purchase more Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicles, otherwise known as MRAPs, which will save more lives. It provides a much needed 3.5-percent pay raise for our troops. It further empowers the Army and Air

Force National Guard as they continue their critical role in our warfighting efforts. And it includes the badly needed Wounded Warrior legislation that will address the broader issues of patient care which we saw manifested at Walter Reed.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am committed to seeing this bill pass the floor of the Senate. It would be a complete failure of leadership on our part if we failed to pass this vital measure while our men and women are engaged in conflict. Unfortunately, this bill has been bogged down by politically motivated Iraq votes the Senate has taken many times before. Again, I understand the legitimate differences of opinion others may have on our strategy in Iraq, but it demonstrates a lack of seriousness about the enemy we face and the needs of our men and women in uniform to be here after 14 days of debate and not to have passed this critical legislation, particularly as we come up against the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

It is time to put the politics aside. It is time to put aside the nondefense related amendments. Every day, our men and women in uniform are out there making us proud with their courage and dedication to their mission. We should be here doing our job making sure we are supporting them by passing this critical legislation.

There are some legitimate amendments related to the underlying bill that we have debated at length, but there are also a lot of amendments that are unrelated to the underlying bill. Switching gears and moving to hate crimes legislation or to restart the immigration debate on the Defense authorization bill, in my view, would be a mistake. It would demonstrate a lack of leadership and a lack of good judgment on our part when we have men and women in the field who are fighting every single day. We need to make sure we get them a Defense authorization bill that gives them the pay raise they deserve, that addresses the equipment needs they have, that deals with the Wounded Warrior legislation, and that cares for our veterans when they come back from that conflict. There are so many important things in this underlying bill that we need to deal with, and we need to deal with them in a timely way.

I would hope that as the debate gets underway again tomorrow, we will be able to come to some final conclusion about this bill and get it passed into law without having to get bogged down in what are ancillary and unrelated issues, many of which are now, at this late juncture, being brought forward.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to do what is in the national interest, the right thing for our men and women in uniform; that is, to pass a Defense authorization bill that addresses their fundamental needs to make sure they have the funding and support, training and equipment they need to do their jobs and complete their mission.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize SrA David Perry of Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota for his heroic efforts in saving a man's life.

Airman Perry had only been based at Ellsworth for a few weeks before the evening of April 22, 2007. While shopping at a local grocery store a man collapsed in front of him, and Airman Perry responded quickly. Taking control of the situation, Airman Perry directed another bystander to call 9-1-1 while he checked the fallen man's vital signs and then began CPR. Through his quick thinking and swift actions the man's life was saved.

Airman Perry will be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal. This medal is awarded to Air Force personnel for outstanding achievement or meritorious service rendered specifically on behalf of the Air Force.

Airman Perry volunteered and was selected, to be part of the Air Force Financial Services Center initial cadre. At the time, he was one of six airmen assigned to the Air Force Financial Services Center and was the only airman instructor at Ellsworth.

Airman Perry truly deserves this award and our commendations for his actions; his service is a shining example of the dedication and bravery that makes America's soldiers the greatest in the world.

Mr. President, today I recognize the momentous occasion of the inauguration of Dr. David L. Chicoine as the 19th president of South Dakota State University.

South Dakota State University has a rich history of strong leadership dating back to the commitment of President George Lilley, who advanced $500 of his own salary to finish three rooms in the first building on campus. President Chicoine joins Dr. Berg and Dr. Wagner to become only the third Jackrabbit to serve in this role.

The stage where Dr. Chicoine's inauguration will take place is evidence of SDSU's strong national presence, as 80 years ago this week Sylvan Theatre and the Lincoln Memorial Library were dedicated by President Calvin Coolidge. The pioneering research completed at SDSU is impacting lives around the world whether it be through improved agricultural practices, the ethanol in our gas tanks, the microwaves that make our dinner, or the scoreboard at our favorite athletic event.

It is said that students come from the Sioux and Missouri, the Cheyenne and the Jim, and the Black Hills to study at SDSU. Students still come to Brookings from those places, but they also come from points around the globe and with knowledge and diploma in hand they impact communities in Brookings, in South Dakota, in neighboring states, and truly around the world. It is said that ``You Can Go Anywhere from Here,'' and we celebrate that, in this case, one student has made the trip full circle.

Congratulations and best wishes to President Chicoine on a long and successful tenure at SDSU, and Go Jacks!

Mr. President, today, Senator Wyden and I are introducing an important piece of legislation that seeks to address the significant transportation infrastructure needs that exist across the country. The Build America Bonds Act would provide $50 billion in infrastructure investment for all states across the country.

This legislation is a slightly modified version of bills that Senator Wyden and others advocated in previous Congresses. While the Federal Government has allocated record funding levels to States under the Transportation reauthorization bill that Congress passed in 2005, the need for infrastructure improvements far exceeds available Federal and State funding sources.

For instance, the American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that over the next 5 years, $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all levels of government to keep our Nation's current transportation system up to date. To put this into perspective, this funding level is roughly six times larger than what is currently being spent.

Our legislation, the Build America Bonds Act, is not intended to replace the current user-fee structure the highway trust fund relies on today--it would be a supplemental funding stream that would allow States to address the backlog of important highway, bridge, rail, and waterway projects that exist in every State across the country.

The funding under our legislation would not be earmarked by Congress--it would be distributed directly to States. Further, this much needed funding would create over 2 million jobs, spur significant economic growth, save lives by making much needed improvements to transportation problems that exist from coast to coast and keep our economy moving.

Our legislation is cosponsored by Senators Coleman, Klobuchar, Dole, Vitter, and Collins. In addition, the Build America Bonds Act enjoys the broad support of a diverse group of business, labor and transportation groups, including: Associated General Contractors of America, AGC, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; National Association of Manufacturers, NAM; National Construction Alliance--a coalition of the Laborers, Carpenters, and Operating Engineers Unions; American Highway Users Alliance; and many others.

Mr. President, today, Senator Wyden and I are introducing an important piece of legislation that seeks to address the significant transportation infrastructure needs that exist across the country. The Build America Bonds Act would provide $50 billion in infrastructure investment for all states across the country.

This legislation is a slightly modified version of bills that Senator Wyden and others advocated in previous Congresses. While the Federal Government has allocated record funding levels to States under the Transportation reauthorization bill that Congress passed in 2005, the need for infrastructure improvements far exceeds available Federal and State funding sources.

For instance, the American Society of Civil Engineers has noted that over the next 5 years, $1.6 trillion in investment is needed from all levels of government to keep our Nation's current transportation system up to date. To put this into perspective, this funding level is roughly six times larger than what is currently being spent.

Our legislation, the Build America Bonds Act, is not intended to replace the current user-fee structure the highway trust fund relies on today--it would be a supplemental funding stream that would allow States to address the backlog of important highway, bridge, rail, and waterway projects that exist in every State across the country.

The funding under our legislation would not be earmarked by Congress--it would be distributed directly to States. Further, this much needed funding would create over 2 million jobs, spur significant economic growth, save lives by making much needed improvements to transportation problems that exist from coast to coast and keep our economy moving.

Our legislation is cosponsored by Senators Coleman, Klobuchar, Dole, Vitter, and Collins. In addition, the Build America Bonds Act enjoys the broad support of a diverse group of business, labor and transportation groups, including: Associated General Contractors of America, AGC, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; National Association of Manufacturers, NAM; National Construction Alliance--a coalition of the Laborers, Carpenters, and Operating Engineers Unions; American Highway Users Alliance; and many others.

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

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to join my colleagues in welcoming a colleague and a friend, Senator Tim Johnson, back to the Senate.

Senator Johnson's return today to this illustrious Chamber marks an incredible journey that took him from normal daily life, to near death, to a remarkable recovery.

For the last 8 months, people from all walks of life, both Democrats and Republicans, have approached me wanting to know how Senator Johnson was doing, and nearly every single one of those individuals told me they were praying for him.

Shortly after this happened, I was traveling in Iraq and Afghanistan and I ran into military personnel, members of the diplomatic corps, other civilians, all asking how Senator Johnson was doing, all offering up their prayers and support.

I happen to believe it was those prayers from across South Dakota, across the United States, and from around the world that brought Senator Johnson back from his life-threatening condition.

Since being released from the hospital, Senator Johnson has learned how to walk and talk again. His doctors have been amazed at his progress. For some of us, it is no surprise. Having faced him in a closely fought campaign, I know how tough this man is. After all, Senator Johnson has a strong Scandinavian background, something we both share. Without question, today marks an important milestone in Senator Johnson's recovery.

Many of us will never know the struggles Senator Johnson and his family have been through. In fact, most of us take for granted our health, and we take for granted our time with family and friends, birthdays and holidays.

For me, Senator Johnson's experience has made me pause and appreciate the little things that make life so precious. Senator Johnson turned 60 in December, and the party, obviously, had to be delayed. Upon returning to South Dakota last week, Senator Johnson and his family celebrated both his 60th birthday and Christmas. I am guessing it was his best birthday and Christmas ever.

While Senator Johnson and I come from different political backgrounds, we have worked to put our differences aside as we represent the people of South Dakota. In fact, since I was elected to the Senate in 2004, we have worked closely on a number of issues of importance to South Dakota--everything from a highway bill, to an energy bill, to drought relief, water projects, and, of course, saving Ellsworth Air Force Base from closure under the BRAC process.

I firmly believe that because he and I worked to put our differences aside, our offices were able to coordinate easily to serve the State of South Dakota during his hospitalization and recovery.

The Senate is a very close-knit body, and it is noticeable when a Senator is absent for any length of time. Today, however, that absence no longer exists. By the grace of God, through the prayers of thousands upon thousands of Americans, by the support of an amazing wife Barbara and family, and network of friends, and by his sheer will and determination, Senator Johnson is back.

Tim, I know today means a great deal to you and to your family, and it is good to see you back in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 306, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Thank you, Mr. President.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Connecticut is going to put forward a number of unanimous-consent requests. Because of the lateness of the hour, we have a number of Members on our side who, on many of these unanimous-consent requests that he will propound, have concerns about those, and so they have not been cleared on this side. I am going to object to this and to some of the others he will be putting forward.

I object.

Reserving the right to object on this, this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. This is something everybody on our side supports. It includes a pay raise for members of our military. But again, until such time as we receive this message from the House--at that time, I guess I will ask the majority to renew that request. Until that happens, I object.