Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wanted to insert this article in the Record because it provides an objective description of the Petraeus plan and how it came to be. The goals of the strategy are ``ambitious,'' as the article notes, but that is all the more reason to support the plan and not undermine it in the Senate. Those who have criticized the surge at this early stage have offered few options for dealing with the aftermath. One option is to follow the recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. At this point, I request unanimous consent to print in the Record a column by Steven Biddle that appeared in the July 11 Washington Post.

Mr. KYL. Mr. Biddle provides a need evaluation of the flaws in the Baker-Hamilton. Among those flaws, as he explains, our combat forces are restraining the intensity of the violence in Iraq, and removing them would cause the violence to rise. This rise in violence would put the safety of Americans who remain to train Iraqis in even greater jeopardy. Of course, prematurely withdrawing our troops would have many other consequences. Indeed, a sobering assessment of the risks of withdrawal is too often missing from debates about the U.S. mission in Iraq. In this regard, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the July 17 Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will speak briefly to the Republican alternative--the amendment that will be voted on later as a comprehensive alternative to the bill. Unlike the Finance Committee bill, the Republican alternative achieves the following goals: First, it reauthorizes SCHIP and preserves health care coverage for millions of low-income children. Secondly, it adds 1.3 million new children to SCHIP coverage. Third, it provides $14 billion in new SCHIP allotments over the $25 billion baseline over the next 5 years. Fourth, the offset is with no new tax increases and, importantly, in contrast in the committee bill, no gimmicks to meet the budget considerations. Next, it includes funds for SCHIP coverage from fiscal year 2013 to 2017. This is important because the Finance Committee bill, in comparison, uses a budget gimmick to reduce the SCHIP funding spending over that critical period of time. As a result, the Republican alternative includes more money for SCHIP over 10 years--$85.1 billion as compared to the Finance Committee bill of $81.7 billion. Next, it minimizes the reduction in private coverage by targeting SCHIP funds to low-income children. It doesn't provide the coverage for the adults or children for higher income families who may have access to private health care insurance, as does the committee bill. In fact, I note that according to CBO, for the newly eligible people to be covered, there is a one-for-one crowd-out effect by the committee product. That is to say, for every new family brought on for SCHIP coverage, there is one that goes off private health insurance coverage. That is not a goal to which we should be aspiring. Next, the Republican alternative promotes market-based health reforms, such as small business health plans and health savings accounts. Finally, it requires a Treasury Department study on ways to make the tax treatment of health care more equitable, something the President raised in his State of the Union speech earlier this year and which we do need to study to come up with a more equitable tax system. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Republican alternative. I note that it is very simple in terms of the two choices that confront the Senate: one, a budget buster that does not protect SCHIP coverage over 10 years and represents an open-ended financial burden on American taxpayers and takes a significant step toward Government-run health care, or a fiscally responsible SCHIP reauthorization that preserves coverage for millions of low-income children that is fully offset without budget gimmicks or tax increases and promotes market-driven health reforms. To me, the choice is very clear. The Republican alternative is the right solution for everyone. I urge its adoption by my colleagues.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I believe it will be possible, with the sponsors of the bill, to reach an agreement that will obviate the necessity for a great deal of floor time or amendments on the floor. I have met with the sponsors of the bill and have presented ideas about ameliorating some of the deficiencies the Department of Justice brought out about the legislation. Last week, I had a long conversation with Senator Cornyn, who is here. I believe if we can continue those discussions, in a very brief period of time--perhaps by the end of this week--it would not be necessary to devote a great deal of time to the consideration of the bill. Because of that, at this time, I will object to that particular procedure, but I hope we can report back to the majority leader that we have reached an agreement on the bill in the near future.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand there was a unanimous consent request to consider the amendment. I was in the cloakroom at the time and had to come out. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I registered my objection, and I continue to do so, but I am happy to try to work something out.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I take 30 seconds to explain why? I have no objection to the text of the Salazar amendment and have talked with Senator Salazar about it. My understanding is that it has the same rule XVI germaneness objection to it that is being posited against an amendment of mine, which I think also is not objectionable. I want to make sure all amendments are treated the same that have the same objection to them.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to talk about the pending amendment to the bill. This amendment is called the Graham-Gregg-Kyl-Sessions, et al., amendment. I wanted to make a couple of quick comments about it. Because the immigration bill failed on the floor of the Senate, a variety of States have begun to pass their own laws to enforce certain elements of immigration policy, including determining employment eligibility. My State of Arizona is one of those States. What I noticed that at least a couple of them have done, including Arizona, is to require that employers check with the Department of Homeland Security, and the basic pilot program we have established as a pilot program, to determine the validity of the Social Security status of the prospective employee. It may well be that as States fill the gap created because the Federal Government has not adopted immigration reform legislation, especially dealing with that subject, that the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security will be increasingly called upon to provide information to the States. Because of that, they are probably going to need to be able to improve their systems; not to change what they do or create a Federal program but at least to be able to respond to those State inquiries. My understanding from the Department of Homeland Security is that they have the capacity to deal with additional inquiries now, but they wish to improve their capabilities and make sure the accuracy level is high of the information passed back to the States and to the employers requesting information, and perhaps even to expand what it is they can provide by way of verification of the validity of the Social Security numbers. So as this process unfolds, we are going to have to make sure all of our Government agencies--primarily the Department of Homeland Security--have what they need to respond to these requests. To that end, one of the elements of the amendment that has been offered here authorizes the expenditure of funds for the specific purpose of improving the reliability of the basic pilot program and associated programs of the Federal Government that would respond to State inquiries. Obviously, my preference is that the Federal Government undertake that ourselves. Our responsibility is to form the immigration laws and secure the border. Having failed to pass legislation, they can help our citizens around the country by having the most robust database possible that is easy to access and, therefore, States and employers throughout the States can take advantage of. The only other thing is that I support this amendment because it includes many of the features that were part of the immigration bill that almost everybody agreed with. What you heard in the debate was that we all agree we need to secure the border, enforce the laws, return to the rule of law, but--there was always a ``but'' and different people had different reasons they didn't want to support the bill. But the bottom line was that almost everybody here supported the essential enforcement features. The Department of Homeland Security appropriation bill, therefore, is the appropriate place to include funding for the execution of the laws that currently exist and, almost without exception, this amendment does not add new authority or programs for enforcement but rather identifies areas in which enforcing existing law would be enhanced through greater capability achieved through the expenditure of funds that could, among other things, hire more personnel or in other ways make the system more robust. Here is one specific example: Most folks like to refer to securing the border, and the symbol of that is the hiring of more Border Patrol. That is fine; we need them. But we also know that 40 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States didn't cross the border illegally. They came here on visas and then overstayed their visas illegally. The question is, what can we do to enforce our visa policy, as well as what can we do to secure the border? This bill focuses on that visa overstayer problem and provides funding for the kind of particular investigators and agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement that would ordinarily be looking at that problem. In addition, it explores ways in which the entry-exit system can be implemented and we can understand who has overstayed their visas so that can be enforced. There is much else in this amendment that is good policy and that backs up that policy by the expenditure of funds. The $3 billion figure in here is, very roughly, an approximation of what the immigration bill that we debated provided for, minus the implementation of a couple of programs, the biggest one of which was the employee verification system. That system obviously failed along with the rest of the immigration bill. That was a pretty expensive item. You will recall that we had mandatory spending of $4.4 billion--money that would have been collected from fines and fees. The $3 billion here represents the bulk of what that money would have been spent on, minus the employee verification system and a few other odds and ends. That is the explanation for the particular amount of funding in the bill. I hope our colleagues will think carefully about this amendment. Its purpose is good. I think its execution is good. It is on the right bill. What it does that is a bit troublesome to some Members is provide some authorization, though that is not the primary element; it would not be the first time we provided authorization on an appropriations bill, but I can see there is some of that in here. The other aspect is the emergency funding nature. One way or another, we are going to have to get the funding to do the things the American people have insisted on. I have no objection to doing this as emergency funding. If we can fund $100 billion for the Iraq war, for example, I think we can fund $3 billion to secure our own border. If the loss of the immigration bill a month ago taught me anything, it was that the American people are very skeptical that we are committed to enforcing the law. I believe until we demonstrate to them a seriousness of purpose by actions rather than words, by the appropriation of money and by the expenditure of that money on things that they can see make a difference in enforcing immigration policy, they are not going to give us the green light to adopt a more comprehensive immigration reform bill. That is why I am supportive of this amendment as the next step toward solving the problem. I think we want to solve it. I think this is a step in that direction and I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first, I want to compliment the distinguished minority leader for not just recalling the sacrifices of the family and members of the U.S. military today, but for his efforts to do that for a long time now on the Senate floor. He focuses on Kentuckians who have a long history of service to their country, and rightly so. I know he would add to that the service of those members of our military and their families from all over this country and add them to our prayers and thoughts as well. We spend time in Washington debating policies that affect them, and they are living it every day, every minute of every day. I appreciate the words he brought to the Senate floor not just on this occasion but on previous occasions as well. Mr. President, I will talk about the action taken earlier by the majority and minority leaders. We have now, by unanimous consent, approved two key provisions of the Defense authorization bill by unanimous consent in a period of 3 or 4 minutes. Yet it took the last 2 weeks to debate the Defense authorization bill, only to have it pulled from the floor so that we could not vote on it. It was used by the majority leader as a surrogate for the debate on Iraq policy. We have had something like seven or eight different resolutions--perhaps more, I have forgotten the count this year--on policy relating to Iraq. There is no more important national security issue facing our country than the war against terrorists, and certainly the central battle field in that war is the Iraq war. Republicans do not shy away from the debate about what to do. It is an extraordinarily important debate. On the other hand, I would have two arguments with the way this has been done. First, the time of the debate right now is misplaced because after the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, after the President had changed his course and consulted with General Petraeus and others about a new strategy, and that strategy was developed, we sent General Petraeus to Iraq to begin executing that strategy. We put together five brigades to represent a surge in troop strength to accomplish the mission, the last of which went into the theater about a month ago. When we did that, we made a commitment to the soldiers, marines, airmen, and all the Navy personnel to back them in what we sent them to do, not to immediately begin questioning whether they could succeed in their mission. We heard a lot of calls from the other side of the aisle that were very defeatist in nature, saying it was already lost and there was no way they could win. That is, obviously, not a good sendoff for the young men and women you are putting in harm's way to accomplish a mission that is important to the American people. So the timing of the debate was off. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will report back here in September. It is an interim report on this new strategy. But we have an idea that it will tell us a lot about the future course of action we should pursue. I think most Americans believe, even though all of us would like to have the troops come home and have our engagement there ended as much as it can, the reality is that Americans don't want to lose, don't want to be defeated. They certainly don't want to see the consequences of that defeat, with al- Qaida having a base of operations in Iraq, perhaps millions of Iraqis slaughtered in the ensuing chaos, and U.S. policy in the war against terror undercut dramatically in that very important region of the world. So the timing was off. Secondly, using the Defense authorization bill as the surrogate for that debate was wrong. This is a little bit of an inside-the-beltway discussion, but the American people need to know why this is wrong. Each year, for 45 years, the Senate has passed a Defense authorization bill setting the policy for our national security for the following year and establishing the authorization for troop strength, military weapons acquisitions, policy related to missile defense, and you name it. The President has signed the Defense authorization bill. That then enables the Congress to appropriate the money to pay for the things that we believe are necessary for the military. But this year, instead of having the debate and amending that bill and passing it, it was simply used as a vehicle to debate Iraq. Then when the last Iraq resolution was defeated, the bill was not passed. It was pulled from the floor. That left extraordinarily important policy hanging--policy on which our military troops rely. This is not the first time the Democratic majority has had second thoughts about action it has taken on the Senate floor. I am glad it is having second thoughts about this bill. But by the action that has been taken, we are still not going to be adopting good policy in the right way. There are consequences to this piecemeal approach. Let me illustrate my point. What we have just done this morning is to do two very important parts of that bill: to adopt a 3.5-percent, across-the-board pay raise for uniform military service personnel, and to adopt the language from the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, both of which were critical components. Senator John McCain, my colleague from Arizona, spoke eloquently regarding both matters on this floor on numerous occasions. I know were he here now, he would be pleased at the action the Senate has taken. Let me cite a few of the things that have been left on the cutting room floor as a result of not passing the Defense authorization bill, but rather simply taking a couple of provisions that are obviously popular with our constituents and leaving the remainder behind. Here are a few of the things we are not adopting as a result of this piecemeal approach: Senator Joe Biden noted that the MRAP, or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, ``are the best available vehicle for force protection'' for our troops. He is right. There was $4.1 billion in the act to authorize payment for this equipment. Not adopted. It authorizes the new hiring and bonus authorities to assist the Defense Department in recruiting and retaining needed, quality health and mental care professionals in the military. Not adopted. It authorized $50 million in supplemental educational aid to local school districts affected by the assignment and location of military families. That is something all military families know about. Not adopted. It authorized payment of combat-related special compensation to servicemembers who are medically retired due to combat-related disability. Not adopted. It included provisions to examine and strengthen security forces at defense sites storing weapons-grade nuclear materials. That is a very important provision relating to nuclear deterrent. Not adopted. It would have satisfied the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirements list by authorizing an additional $2.7 billion for items such as reactive armor, aviation survivability equipment, combat training centers, and machine guns--a variety of things the Pentagon said were necessary to support the missions of our men and women in the military. Not adopted. My point here is that when you use the Defense authorization bill for the purpose simply of having a debate on Iraq, there are a lot of bad consequences to not passing that bill. You cannot cure them by simply picking a couple of the more politically popular items, such as we have done today, and getting those adopted by unanimous consent. I am delighted that we have done it, but that is not the end of the story if we are really going to support the mission of our troops. Mr. President, let me conclude on this thought. To some extent, this debate we had in the last 2 weeks just on the Iraq war is a manifestation of what has gone on in the Congress for the last 200 days. It is hard to believe that 200 days is gone. What does this Congress have to show for its actions and being in session for these 200 days? I cannot say nothing because the reality is, we have approved and named 20 post offices. That is a post office every 10 days. It is not exactly heavy lifting, but it is something. As a matter of fact, it is the main thing this Senate can point to in terms of accomplishment. The only other thing of substance was the minimum wage increase, which, unfortunately, did not include the benefits to small businesses that have to pay the minimum wage in terms of tax relief, which Republicans tried to have included. Of course, we had to pass the supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war effort. That is it. I apologized yesterday for calling this a ``do-nothing Congress.'' After all, we have named 20 post offices. Let's call it the ``post office Congress.'' Perhaps in the remaining time this year we will pick up the action. Perhaps we will find ways to accomplish things that the American people really want us to do. One of the big problems we can see is because we have not done the appropriations bills to fund everything from the military to the Departments of Justice and Commerce, all of the other departments of Government that serve the American people are going to be facing a trillion-dollar-plus Omnibus appropriations bill this winter. That is the worst of legislating. It is kind of the opposite of what we are doing with the Defense authorization bill where we don't pass the bill, but we pick two or three items that are politically popular and do them by unanimous consent. In this case, you don't do anything to fund the Government until the last few days, and then you ball it up into one giant bill, thinking nobody can vote against it because, after all, it is either all or nothing. That is very bad legislating and something I think we are going to resist because it represents not just an increase in spending but will undoubtedly represent bad policy as well. Mr. President, my hope is that this ``post office Congress'' can get on to some other business. I am delighted we have been able to select two items from the Defense authorization bill to adopt by unanimous consent today. But that will not correct the deficiencies. I hope my colleagues, in the remaining time before the August work period, and in the months of September and October, will roll up their sleeves and work on the problems the American people sent us here to resolve.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2007. This bill facilitates an important land exchange in Arizona that will provide for the acquisition and protection of environmentally sensitive lands while providing a much needed economic engine for the people of Superior, AZ, and the surrounding communities. I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCain as an original cosponsor of this bill. This is not the first time Senator McCain and I have introduced this land exchange legislation. In 2005, we introduced S. 1122. S. 1122 was later modified and reintroduced in 2006 as S. 2466. S. 2466, as introduced, reflected the painstaking negotiated compromises and public feedback that we received with respect to the bill. S. 2466 had a favorable hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in May 2006. At that hearing, both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management testified in support of the bill. The bill, however, was not enacted in the last Congress. I am pleased to say we are back again this year with a bill that includes some new provisions based on the work of the stakeholders to continue to improve the bill. The exchange facilitates the conveyance to Resolution Copper of approximately 3,025 acres of National Forest System land, 3 miles outside of Superior, Arizona in the historic Pioneer Mining District. The acreage commonly called ``Oak Flat'' would be traded to Resolution Copper to facilitate future exploration, and possible development, of what may be one of the largest deposits of copper ore ever discovered in North America. The 3,025 acres of Federal lands are intermingled with, or lie next to, private lands already owned by Resolution Copper, and are located south and east of Resolution's existing underground Magma copper mine. Approximately 75 percent of the Federal land is already blanketed by federally authorized mining claims owned by Resolution Copper that give it the right to explore and develop the minerals. Given the intermingled ownership, the public safety issues that may be associated with mining activities, and the significant financial investment Resolution Copper must make to even determine whether development of a mine is feasible, it makes sense, for Resolution Copper to own the entire Oak Flat area. However, we also recognize that there are public impacts associated with transferring Oak Flat out of federal ownership. This bill goes far in addressing these impacts. Let me explain. First, the land exchange is conditioned on the execution of a permanent conservation easement to protect Apache Leap, a spectacular cliff area rich in cultural history on the western side of the Federal parcel. Although the conservation easement has been a feature in this bill since it was first introduced, we have expanded and strengthened the protections required by the easement. The easement will now apply to the entire Apache Leap escarpment totaling approximately 695 acres up from the 562 acres that were protected in the original bill. To address concerns that were raised that the mining operation might still affect the area, the conservation easement will not just prohibit surface development, it will also prohibit commercial mineral extraction under the easement area. In addition, the exchange includes a fund endowment for the implementation of the terms of the conservation easement. The Oak Flat Campground, consisting of 16 rustic tent/RV sites, is located on the north side of the parcel, adjacent to U.S. Highway 60. Recognizing that the campground is used by the community and others, we are requiring that this campground be replaced on the Globe Ranger District at Resolution Copper's expense. Public access to this campground will not immediately terminate on enactment of the legislation: The bill stipulates continued public access to the campground for two years after enactment. We also heard from the public that climbing and bouldering are important recreational resources at Oak Flat. For this reason, we included a placeholder in S. 1122 for additional climbing provisions as a good faith offer to the climbing community to work with us and Resolution Copper to address the loss of public access to climbing at Oak Flat in a way that would not compromise public safety. A compromise was reached by the stakeholders to continue temporary interim access to some climbing at Oak Flat; and execute a license between Resolution Copper and Access Fund, a national advocacy climbing organization, to allow climbers to gain access to popular climbing sites located on Resolution Copper's private land. This compromise along with the discovery of ``Tamo,'' a climbing gem in the Tam O'Shanter Mountains, which is slated to become Arizona's newest State park, are examples of how parties coming together can turn an unfortunate situation into a win-win. We had hoped we would be able to make a similar announcement with regard to the cultural resource concerns that were raised by the San Carlos Apache Tribe in May of last year. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I am still hopeful, however, and I will continue to reach out to the Yavapai and Apache tribes as this bill moves through the legislative process. In return for conveying the Federal land to Resolution Copper, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will receive eight parcels of private land, totaling 4,583 acres plus $7.5 million to be placed in a trust account to be expended by the United States on additional conservation lands in Arizona. The parcels included in this bill have been identified, and are strongly endorsed for acquisition by the Arizona Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, Sonoran Institute, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and numerous others. They include lands along the San Pedro River, an important internationally recognized migratory bird corridor, riparian and wetland habitat for threatened and endangered animal and plant species, including the southwestern willow flycatcher and the hedgehog cactus, and magnificent canyons and forests that are home to big game species. Most of the parcels are in holdings whose acquisition will enable more effective management of the federal land. It is in the public interest to bring these conservation lands into Federal ownership for the enjoyment of future generations. Although the focus of this bill is the land exchange between Resolution Copper and the U.S., it also includes provisions allowing for the conveyance of Federal lands to the town of Superior. These lands include the town cemetery, lands around the town airport, and a Federal reversionary interest that exists at the airport site. These lands are included in the proposed exchange to help the town to provide its municipal needs and expand and diversify its economic development. Though I have described the many benefits of and the important compromises that are part of this exchange, you may be asking why we are legislating this land exchange. Why not use the existing administrative land exchange process? The answer is that this exchange can only be accomplished legislatively because the Forest Service does not have the authority to convey away Federal lands in order to acquire other lands outside the boundaries of the National Forest System, no matter how ecologically valuable. This bill contains procedural safeguards and conditions that ensure it is an equal value exchange in the public interest. I will highlight some of those safeguards: First, it requires that all appraisals of the lands must follow standard federal practice and be performed in accordance with appraisal standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice. All appraisals must also be formally reviewed, and approved, by the Secretary of Agriculture. Second, to ensure the Federal Government gets full value for the Federal parcel it is giving up, the Federal parcel will be appraised to include the minerals and appraised as if unencumbered by the private mining claims that detract from the fair market value of the land. These are important provisions not required by federal law. They are especially significant given that over 75 percent of the Federal parcel is covered by mining claims owned by Resolution Copper and the bulk of the value of the Federal parcel is expected to be the minerals. Third, the Apache Leap conservation easement is expressly excluded from the valuation of the Federal land, preventing any possibility that this easement would devalue the Federal land. By following standard appraisal practices and including these additional safeguards in the valuation process, the U.S., and ultimately the taxpayer, will receive full fair market value for both the land and the minerals it contains. With this land exchange we can preserve lands that advance the important public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural resources, the watershed, and aesthetic values, while generating economic, recreation, and employment opportunities for state and local residents. I hope we approve the legislation at the earliest possible date. It is a winning scenario for our environment and our economy.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2007. This bill facilitates an important land exchange in Arizona that will provide for the acquisition and protection of environmentally sensitive lands while providing a much needed economic engine for the people of Superior, AZ, and the surrounding communities. I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCain as an original cosponsor of this bill. This is not the first time Senator McCain and I have introduced this land exchange legislation. In 2005, we introduced S. 1122. S. 1122 was later modified and reintroduced in 2006 as S. 2466. S. 2466, as introduced, reflected the painstaking negotiated compromises and public feedback that we received with respect to the bill. S. 2466 had a favorable hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in May 2006. At that hearing, both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management testified in support of the bill. The bill, however, was not enacted in the last Congress. I am pleased to say we are back again this year with a bill that includes some new provisions based on the work of the stakeholders to continue to improve the bill. The exchange facilitates the conveyance to Resolution Copper of approximately 3,025 acres of National Forest System land, 3 miles outside of Superior, Arizona in the historic Pioneer Mining District. The acreage commonly called ``Oak Flat'' would be traded to Resolution Copper to facilitate future exploration, and possible development, of what may be one of the largest deposits of copper ore ever discovered in North America. The 3,025 acres of Federal lands are intermingled with, or lie next to, private lands already owned by Resolution Copper, and are located south and east of Resolution's existing underground Magma copper mine. Approximately 75 percent of the Federal land is already blanketed by federally authorized mining claims owned by Resolution Copper that give it the right to explore and develop the minerals. Given the intermingled ownership, the public safety issues that may be associated with mining activities, and the significant financial investment Resolution Copper must make to even determine whether development of a mine is feasible, it makes sense, for Resolution Copper to own the entire Oak Flat area. However, we also recognize that there are public impacts associated with transferring Oak Flat out of federal ownership. This bill goes far in addressing these impacts. Let me explain. First, the land exchange is conditioned on the execution of a permanent conservation easement to protect Apache Leap, a spectacular cliff area rich in cultural history on the western side of the Federal parcel. Although the conservation easement has been a feature in this bill since it was first introduced, we have expanded and strengthened the protections required by the easement. The easement will now apply to the entire Apache Leap escarpment totaling approximately 695 acres up from the 562 acres that were protected in the original bill. To address concerns that were raised that the mining operation might still affect the area, the conservation easement will not just prohibit surface development, it will also prohibit commercial mineral extraction under the easement area. In addition, the exchange includes a fund endowment for the implementation of the terms of the conservation easement. The Oak Flat Campground, consisting of 16 rustic tent/RV sites, is located on the north side of the parcel, adjacent to U.S. Highway 60. Recognizing that the campground is used by the community and others, we are requiring that this campground be replaced on the Globe Ranger District at Resolution Copper's expense. Public access to this campground will not immediately terminate on enactment of the legislation: The bill stipulates continued public access to the campground for two years after enactment. We also heard from the public that climbing and bouldering are important recreational resources at Oak Flat. For this reason, we included a placeholder in S. 1122 for additional climbing provisions as a good faith offer to the climbing community to work with us and Resolution Copper to address the loss of public access to climbing at Oak Flat in a way that would not compromise public safety. A compromise was reached by the stakeholders to continue temporary interim access to some climbing at Oak Flat; and execute a license between Resolution Copper and Access Fund, a national advocacy climbing organization, to allow climbers to gain access to popular climbing sites located on Resolution Copper's private land. This compromise along with the discovery of ``Tamo,'' a climbing gem in the Tam O'Shanter Mountains, which is slated to become Arizona's newest State park, are examples of how parties coming together can turn an unfortunate situation into a win-win. We had hoped we would be able to make a similar announcement with regard to the cultural resource concerns that were raised by the San Carlos Apache Tribe in May of last year. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I am still hopeful, however, and I will continue to reach out to the Yavapai and Apache tribes as this bill moves through the legislative process. In return for conveying the Federal land to Resolution Copper, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will receive eight parcels of private land, totaling 4,583 acres plus $7.5 million to be placed in a trust account to be expended by the United States on additional conservation lands in Arizona. The parcels included in this bill have been identified, and are strongly endorsed for acquisition by the Arizona Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, Sonoran Institute, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and numerous others. They include lands along the San Pedro River, an important internationally recognized migratory bird corridor, riparian and wetland habitat for threatened and endangered animal and plant species, including the southwestern willow flycatcher and the hedgehog cactus, and magnificent canyons and forests that are home to big game species. Most of the parcels are in holdings whose acquisition will enable more effective management of the federal land. It is in the public interest to bring these conservation lands into Federal ownership for the enjoyment of future generations. Although the focus of this bill is the land exchange between Resolution Copper and the U.S., it also includes provisions allowing for the conveyance of Federal lands to the town of Superior. These lands include the town cemetery, lands around the town airport, and a Federal reversionary interest that exists at the airport site. These lands are included in the proposed exchange to help the town to provide its municipal needs and expand and diversify its economic development. Though I have described the many benefits of and the important compromises that are part of this exchange, you may be asking why we are legislating this land exchange. Why not use the existing administrative land exchange process? The answer is that this exchange can only be accomplished legislatively because the Forest Service does not have the authority to convey away Federal lands in order to acquire other lands outside the boundaries of the National Forest System, no matter how ecologically valuable. This bill contains procedural safeguards and conditions that ensure it is an equal value exchange in the public interest. I will highlight some of those safeguards: First, it requires that all appraisals of the lands must follow standard federal practice and be performed in accordance with appraisal standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice. All appraisals must also be formally reviewed, and approved, by the Secretary of Agriculture. Second, to ensure the Federal Government gets full value for the Federal parcel it is giving up, the Federal parcel will be appraised to include the minerals and appraised as if unencumbered by the private mining claims that detract from the fair market value of the land. These are important provisions not required by federal law. They are especially significant given that over 75 percent of the Federal parcel is covered by mining claims owned by Resolution Copper and the bulk of the value of the Federal parcel is expected to be the minerals. Third, the Apache Leap conservation easement is expressly excluded from the valuation of the Federal land, preventing any possibility that this easement would devalue the Federal land. By following standard appraisal practices and including these additional safeguards in the valuation process, the U.S., and ultimately the taxpayer, will receive full fair market value for both the land and the minerals it contains. With this land exchange we can preserve lands that advance the important public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural resources, the watershed, and aesthetic values, while generating economic, recreation, and employment opportunities for state and local residents. I hope we approve the legislation at the earliest possible date. It is a winning scenario for our environment and our economy.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, the AMT patch that protected most taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax expired on December 31 of last year. As a result, 15 million additional taxpayers on top of the 4 million taxpayers already subject to AMT are subject to the tax this year. This bill affords us an opportunity to correct the problem now, and we should. We are halfway through the year, and the tax is adding up. The AMT should be repealed as soon as possible. The text of my amendment is identical to a bill introduced by Senator Baucus on January 4. It is S. 55. Very simply, the bill would repeal the individual AMT without any revenue offsets. In his introductory statement, Senator Baucus noted that the AMT is a ``monster that really cannot be improved. It cannot be made to work right.'' I agree with him. That is why the Senate should vote to repeal the AMT now, before it overwhelms the middle class. While I believe the Chair will rule it is not germane to this bill, I would suggest to my colleagues it is propitious; that this bill gives us the opportunity to act now to repeal this tax.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe there is an opportunity for someone to speak against the amendment; is that correct?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, until this last amendment, I haven't seen politically inspired amendments before this body, and we don't have to vote on politically inspired amendments. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, a suggestion of political motivation is a violation of the rules of the Senate, and I don't believe that any of these amendments have been politically inspired. The next one offered by Republicans has to do with Pell grants. I think the senior Senator from California had a very serious amendment with respect to detainees at Guantanamo, and there was an amendment which related to that issue. We had an amendment on the fairness doctrine, another on the Secret Ballot Protection Act. These are serious amendments. I am sure my colleague did not wish to suggest they were politically inspired. I hope that we don't get into politically inspired amendments and that our colleagues will vote against the amendment that has been offered just for that reason.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Madam President. I will suggest that under the Budget Act the proposed second-degree amendment is not germane. Let me make two comments about it first. I think it is responsible for us to repeal the AMT in the way the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has proposed to this body in S. 55. I happen to be a cosponsor of that bill. I think it is a very good idea. It is true it repeals the AMT without any revenue offsets. I happen to believe, as the chairman of the Finance Committee does, that is a responsible action, given the number of Americans who otherwise would be subject to the tax. While I appreciate the notion that a sense of the Senate that we should do tax relief on AMT would be a good thing for this body to do, one of two things will happen. Either the blue slip issue will not be a problem because it will not be raised and we can, in fact, use this vehicle to accomplish this result now or it will and, in effect, my amendment would have been the equivalent of a sense of the Senate.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I move that the applicable provisions of the Budget Act be waived, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2353, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I raise a point of order under the Congressional Budget Act that the proposed second-degree amendment is not germane.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I apologize. If I could ask the distinguished leader, was this with respect to the Levin-Reed amendment No. 1401?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could respond, and reserving the right to object, I assume that if the Cornyn amendment, which was designed to be a side-by-side amendment, and the Levin-Reed amendment could both be voted on and both had a 60-vote threshold, a time agreement could be worked out. I ask the majority leader, could the unanimous consent request be modified to incorporate that principle so that there wouldn't have to be cloture, but there could be a vote on both of those amendments?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, we have already agreed to the previous consent to go to conference on the 9/11 Commission legislation. We have named conferees on the part of the Senate. As I understand it, the House wants to add a new bill to the conference, which includes provisions that were not included in either Chambers' 9/11 bill. I am not familiar with all the provisions of H.R. 1401, but I know the Senate has not acted on that bill, and we don't believe it was part of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Having said that, we need to object to this request at this time.