John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. McCAIN. Not only do we have the earmarks in outrageous and disgraceful pork-barreling on this bill--again, that none of us ever saw until my staff went through this bill--but there is also a great deal of legislation. Remember, this is the Department of Defense appropriations bill. So it is not just the money, it is also policies and major policy decisions. There are avian flu vaccine limitation of liability provisions. I tell the Senator from Oklahoma, I do not know if that is worthwhile or not, but it has been jammed into a Department of Defense appropriations bill. There is funding for farm conservation. There is a provision protecting jobs in--guess where--Hawaii and Alaska. And there is a provision that transfers, as a direct lump-sum payment to the University of Alaska, the unobligated and unexpended balances appropriated to the United States-Canada Railroad Commission. Does the Senator from Oklahoma have a clue what that is all about?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend to indulge me. I ask unanimous consent I follow the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the order?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to provide greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government and ensure greater accountability among public officials. The legislation does a number of things. It provides for faster reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and their employers under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It requires greater disclosure of the activities of lobbyists, including for the first time grassroots lobbying firms. The bill also requires greater disclosure from both lobbyists and Members and employees of Congress about travel that is arranged or financed by a lobbyist or his client. To understand more thoroughly the actions lobbyists take to influence elected officials, the bill requires lobbying firms, lobbyists, and their political action committees to disclose their campaign contributions to Federal candidates and officeholders, their political action committees and political party committees. It further mandates disclosure of fundraisers hosted, cohosted, or otherwise sponsored by these entities, and disclosure of contributions for other events involving legislative and executive branch officials. To get behind anonymous coalitions and associations and discover who actually is seeking to influence Government, the bill requires registrants to list as clients those entities that contribute $10,000 or more to a coalition or association. The bill expressly keeps intact, however, existing law governing the disclosure of the identities of members and donors to organizations designated as 501(c) groups under the Internal Revenue Code. To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and the private sector, the bill lengthens the period during which senior members of the executive, Members of Congress, and senior congressional staff are restricted from lobbying. The bill also modifies the provision in current law that exempts from the revolving door laws former employees who go to work for Indian tribes by applying these laws to those employees retained by tribes as outside lobbyists and agents. To ensure compliance with congressional restrictions on accepting gifts, the bill requires registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act to report gifts worth $20 or more. I repeat that: The person who gives the gift is now responsible for reporting a gift of $20 or more. To accurately reflect the true value of benefits received, the bill also requires Members of Congress and staff to pay the fair market value for travel on private planes and the value of sports and entertainment tickets and skyboxes at the cost of the highest priced ticket in the arena. The legislation increases the penalty for violating the reporting requirements, and it contains other provisions on enforcement and oversight. This bill is regrettably necessary. Over the past year and a half, the Committee on Indian affairs has unearthed a story of excess and abuse by former lobbyists of a few Indian tribes. The story is alarming in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It has spanned across the United States, sweeping up tribes throughout Indian country. It has taken us from tribal reservations across America to luxury skyboxes in town, from a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, to a sniper workshop in Israel and beyond. It involves tens of millions of dollars that we know about and likely more that we do not. Much of what the committee learned was extraordinary. Yet much of what we uncovered in the investigation was, unfortunately, the ordinary way of doing business in this town. The bill I am introducing today seeks to address business as usual in the Nation's Capital. How these lobbyists sought to influence policy and opinionmakers is a case study in the ways lobbyists seek to curry favor with legislators and their aides. For example, they sought to ingratiate themselves with public servants with tickets to plush skyboxes at the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and Camden Yards for sports and entertainment events. They arranged extravagant getaways to tropical islands, the famed golfing links of St. Andrews and elsewhere. They regularly treated people to meals and drinks. Fundraisers and contributions abounded. The bill casts some disinfectant on those practices by simply requiring greater disclosure. If there is nothing inherently wrong with such activities, then there is no good reason to hide them from public scrutiny. The American people deserve no less. During its investigation, the committee also learned about unscrupulous tactics employed to lobby Members and to shape public opinion. We found a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, established in part to disguise the true identity of clients. We saw phony Christian grassroots organizations consisting of a box of cell phones and a desk drawer. I submit that in the great marketplace of ideas we call public discourse, truth is a premium that we cannot sacrifice. Through these practices, the lobbyists distorted the truth not only with false messages but also with fake messengers. I hope by having for the first time disclosure of grassroots activities in the financial interests beyond misleading front groups that such a fraud on Members and voters can be avoided. Many cast blame only on the lobbying industry. But we should not forget that we as Members owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces rather than diminishes the public's faith and confidence in Congress. The bill thus requires more accurate accounting of the benefits and privileges that sometimes come with public office. Requiring lobbyists to disclose all gifts over $20 will cause not only the lobbyist but also the recipient to more scrupulously adhere to existing gift limits. Fair evaluation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events and for air travel aboard private planes is another way of giving real effect to the gift rules of Congress. I have read news reports that the Department of Justice is investigating job negotiations that some public officials may have had with lobbying firms while still in Government, negotiations that may have compromised their job performance. I have long been concerned with the revolving door between public service and the private sector, how that door is spun to personal gain, and the corrupting influences that can creep through that door into Government decisionmaking. To address the problem, I am proposing to expand the cooling off period to 2 years for Members of Congress and senior staff and certain executive branch officials. And to ensure a level playing field, I am seeking to close a loophole that has existed in Federal conflict-of-interest laws for those who represent Indian tribes. Informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. The approach on this bill is thus one of greater disclosure of and transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with our public officials. The bill is intended to balance the right of the public to know with its right to petition Government, the ability of lobbyists to advocate their clients' cause with a need for truthful public discourse, and the ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence. That is why I would hope my colleagues would carefully examine this measure. I have had conversations with numerous other Members of this body, and I hope that both Republican and Democrat can join together on this issue. I noted in today's--Friday, December 16--Congress Daily, there is a little chart in the corner, and it says: ``2005 Congressional Approval Ratings.'' I notice a very interesting trend. On February 1 of this year, approximately 40-some percent--about 44 percent--of the people approved, and about 43 percent disapproved. Those numbers have changed somewhat dramatically to a disapproval rating, in the last couple of days, of 64 percent, with a 26-percent approval rating. I repeat: 64 percent disapprove, 26 percent approve. Now, I am not sure that is divided up between Democrats and Republicans. From my travels--and I have been traveling a lot lately in the last few weeks around the country--I find that disapproval is nonpartisan in nature. I think there are a number of reasons for that disapproval, and many of them I will not chronicle here. But one of them is that there is a deep perception that we do not act on the priorities of the American people, that special interests set our agenda here rather than the people's interest. Now, I do not pretend that a lobbying reform bill will be the panacea for all the ills that I think beset this Capitol of ours, but I do believe it is part of an effort we all need to make--and seriously make--in order to try to turn these kinds of numbers around, not only for our individual well-being but for the well-being of the people of the United States because it will be more difficult to act effectively if we do not have at least a significant amount of support from the people whom we purport to represent. I would like to say another word about lobbyists. Lobbying is an honorable profession. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with people working in order to bring the people's interests and agenda and priorities to the attention of Congress. Almost all of us who I know of rely on their input on various issues. Many supply us with policy papers, with data, et cetera. But, Mr. President--Mr. President--when we have the behavior that we highlighted, what actually was brought to our attention during our Indian Affairs Committee hearings, it is not believable: luxury sports boxes, a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, a sniper workshop in Israel, the list goes on and on. And, of course, the way the Native Americans were treated was especially insulting. Congress, according to the Constitution, has a special obligation in regard to Indian affairs. But I will tell you what, I greatly fear that these practices we have uncovered concerning Native Americans are far more widespread than just lobbying efforts on behalf of Native Americans--or exploitation of Native Americans is probably the better description. I do not think there is any doubt that one of the reasons the American people mistrust us is they think there is wrongdoing, if not corruption, in this town. We have an obligation to fix this system as well as we can, and I believe that one of the measures that needs to be taken is to have a lobbying transparency and accountability that can give us confidence. I note the presence of my friend from Connecticut on the floor whom I have had discussions with on this issue. I have had them with my colleague, Senator Feingold, and many others. I hope we can, over the recess, think about this issue and be prepared to address it as early as possible. We have a long way to go to restore accountability, transparency, and the confidence of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to provide greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government and ensure greater accountability among public officials. The legislation does a number of things. It provides for faster reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and their employers under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It requires greater disclosure of the activities of lobbyists, including for the first time grassroots lobbying firms. The bill also requires greater disclosure from both lobbyists and Members and employees of Congress about travel that is arranged or financed by a lobbyist or his client. To understand more thoroughly the actions lobbyists take to influence elected officials, the bill requires lobbying firms, lobbyists, and their political action committees to disclose their campaign contributions to Federal candidates and officeholders, their political action committees and political party committees. It further mandates disclosure of fundraisers hosted, cohosted, or otherwise sponsored by these entities, and disclosure of contributions for other events involving legislative and executive branch officials. To get behind anonymous coalitions and associations and discover who actually is seeking to influence Government, the bill requires registrants to list as clients those entities that contribute $10,000 or more to a coalition or association. The bill expressly keeps intact, however, existing law governing the disclosure of the identities of members and donors to organizations designated as 501(c) groups under the Internal Revenue Code. To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and the private sector, the bill lengthens the period during which senior members of the executive, Members of Congress, and senior congressional staff are restricted from lobbying. The bill also modifies the provision in current law that exempts from the revolving door laws former employees who go to work for Indian tribes by applying these laws to those employees retained by tribes as outside lobbyists and agents. To ensure compliance with congressional restrictions on accepting gifts, the bill requires registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act to report gifts worth $20 or more. I repeat that: The person who gives the gift is now responsible for reporting a gift of $20 or more. To accurately reflect the true value of benefits received, the bill also requires Members of Congress and staff to pay the fair market value for travel on private planes and the value of sports and entertainment tickets and skyboxes at the cost of the highest priced ticket in the arena. The legislation increases the penalty for violating the reporting requirements, and it contains other provisions on enforcement and oversight. This bill is regrettably necessary. Over the past year and a half, the Committee on Indian affairs has unearthed a story of excess and abuse by former lobbyists of a few Indian tribes. The story is alarming in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It has spanned across the United States, sweeping up tribes throughout Indian country. It has taken us from tribal reservations across America to luxury skyboxes in town, from a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, to a sniper workshop in Israel and beyond. It involves tens of millions of dollars that we know about and likely more that we do not. Much of what the committee learned was extraordinary. Yet much of what we uncovered in the investigation was, unfortunately, the ordinary way of doing business in this town. The bill I am introducing today seeks to address business as usual in the Nation's Capital. How these lobbyists sought to influence policy and opinionmakers is a case study in the ways lobbyists seek to curry favor with legislators and their aides. For example, they sought to ingratiate themselves with public servants with tickets to plush skyboxes at the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and Camden Yards for sports and entertainment events. They arranged extravagant getaways to tropical islands, the famed golfing links of St. Andrews and elsewhere. They regularly treated people to meals and drinks. Fundraisers and contributions abounded. The bill casts some disinfectant on those practices by simply requiring greater disclosure. If there is nothing inherently wrong with such activities, then there is no good reason to hide them from public scrutiny. The American people deserve no less. During its investigation, the committee also learned about unscrupulous tactics employed to lobby Members and to shape public opinion. We found a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, established in part to disguise the true identity of clients. We saw phony Christian grassroots organizations consisting of a box of cell phones and a desk drawer. I submit that in the great marketplace of ideas we call public discourse, truth is a premium that we cannot sacrifice. Through these practices, the lobbyists distorted the truth not only with false messages but also with fake messengers. I hope by having for the first time disclosure of grassroots activities in the financial interests beyond misleading front groups that such a fraud on Members and voters can be avoided. Many cast blame only on the lobbying industry. But we should not forget that we as Members owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces rather than diminishes the public's faith and confidence in Congress. The bill thus requires more accurate accounting of the benefits and privileges that sometimes come with public office. Requiring lobbyists to disclose all gifts over $20 will cause not only the lobbyist but also the recipient to more scrupulously adhere to existing gift limits. Fair evaluation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events and for air travel aboard private planes is another way of giving real effect to the gift rules of Congress. I have read news reports that the Department of Justice is investigating job negotiations that some public officials may have had with lobbying firms while still in Government, negotiations that may have compromised their job performance. I have long been concerned with the revolving door between public service and the private sector, how that door is spun to personal gain, and the corrupting influences that can creep through that door into Government decisionmaking. To address the problem, I am proposing to expand the cooling off period to 2 years for Members of Congress and senior staff and certain executive branch officials. And to ensure a level playing field, I am seeking to close a loophole that has existed in Federal conflict-of-interest laws for those who represent Indian tribes. Informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. The approach on this bill is thus one of greater disclosure of and transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with our public officials. The bill is intended to balance the right of the public to know with its right to petition Government, the ability of lobbyists to advocate their clients' cause with a need for truthful public discourse, and the ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence. That is why I would hope my colleagues would carefully examine this measure. I have had conversations with numerous other Members of this body, and I hope that both Republican and Democrat can join together on this issue. I noted in today's--Friday, December 16--Congress Daily, there is a little chart in the corner, and it says: ``2005 Congressional Approval Ratings.'' I notice a very interesting trend. On February 1 of this year, approximately 40-some percent--about 44 percent--of the people approved, and about 43 percent disapproved. Those numbers have changed somewhat dramatically to a disapproval rating, in the last couple of days, of 64 percent, with a 26-percent approval rating. I repeat: 64 percent disapprove, 26 percent approve. Now, I am not sure that is divided up between Democrats and Republicans. From my travels--and I have been traveling a lot lately in the last few weeks around the country--I find that disapproval is nonpartisan in nature. I think there are a number of reasons for that disapproval, and many of them I will not chronicle here. But one of them is that there is a deep perception that we do not act on the priorities of the American people, that special interests set our agenda here rather than the people's interest. Now, I do not pretend that a lobbying reform bill will be the panacea for all the ills that I think beset this Capitol of ours, but I do believe it is part of an effort we all need to make--and seriously make--in order to try to turn these kinds of numbers around, not only for our individual well-being but for the well-being of the people of the United States because it will be more difficult to act effectively if we do not have at least a significant amount of support from the people whom we purport to represent. I would like to say another word about lobbyists. Lobbying is an honorable profession. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with people working in order to bring the people's interests and agenda and priorities to the attention of Congress. Almost all of us who I know of rely on their input on various issues. Many supply us with policy papers, with data, et cetera. But, Mr. President--Mr. President--when we have the behavior that we highlighted, what actually was brought to our attention during our Indian Affairs Committee hearings, it is not believable: luxury sports boxes, a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, a sniper workshop in Israel, the list goes on and on. And, of course, the way the Native Americans were treated was especially insulting. Congress, according to the Constitution, has a special obligation in regard to Indian affairs. But I will tell you what, I greatly fear that these practices we have uncovered concerning Native Americans are far more widespread than just lobbying efforts on behalf of Native Americans--or exploitation of Native Americans is probably the better description. I do not think there is any doubt that one of the reasons the American people mistrust us is they think there is wrongdoing, if not corruption, in this town. We have an obligation to fix this system as well as we can, and I believe that one of the measures that needs to be taken is to have a lobbying transparency and accountability that can give us confidence. I note the presence of my friend from Connecticut on the floor whom I have had discussions with on this issue. I have had them with my colleague, Senator Feingold, and many others. I hope we can, over the recess, think about this issue and be prepared to address it as early as possible. We have a long way to go to restore accountability, transparency, and the confidence of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Native Nations Leadership, Management, and Policy Act of 2005, originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill. The Native Nations Leadership, Management, and Policy Act authorizes funding for leadership training, strategic and organizational development, and research and policy analysis to assist American Indian nations to achieve effective self-governance and sustainable economic development. This provision renews authorized funding for the Native Nations Institute programs for a period of 10 years, beginning in fiscal year 2007. Dedicated funding for NNI is necessary to ensure the continuation of these important programs without further draining funds from the Udall Foundation's other educational activities. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my respective colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Indian Tribal Justice Systems Act of 2005, originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill. The Indian tribal justice systems amendments extends the authorization for the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act through fiscal year 2010, and extends the Indian Tribal Justice Act for 3 more years. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my respective colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to amend regulatory provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The bill clarifies that the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) has authority to promulgate and enforce Minimum Internal Control Standards as to Class III gaming; grants the NIGC Chairman authority to approve contracts, and expands contract approval to include contracts not only for management contracts but also for gaming operation development contracts and consulting services, as well as for any contract the fees for which are to be paid as a percentage of gaming revenue; tightens restrictions on off-reservation gaming; gives the NIGC authority to issue complaints against any individual or entity, not just against tribes or management contractors, that violate IGRA or federal regulations; and requires all tribes to pay fees to the NIGC. When IGRA was enacted in 1988, Indian gaming was a $200 million dollar industry. Today, the industry earns $19 billion a year and is spread throughout the nation. The amendments reflect the need to re- evaluate what constitutes appropriate regulation of this vastly changed enterprise. I have always been and continue to be a supporter of the rights of Indian tribes to conduct gaming, a right guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the California v. Cabazon decision and codified in IGRA, but I also continue to believe that effective regulation of these enterprises are critical to tribes' continued success. Ensuring that the NIGC is able to continue its oversight of Class ill gaming is necessary to this effective regulation. On August 24, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision in Colorado River Indian Tribes v. NIGC (``CRIT''), ruling that the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) did not have jurisdiction to issue Class ill Minimum Internal Controls Standards (MICS). These standards regulate day-to-day operations of gaming operations. Specifically, they provide rules that designate how cash is handled by the gaming operation, prescribe surveillance over game play, and provide auditing procedures. Until the Court's decision, the NIGC had been regulating Class ill gaming through MICS since 1999. The regulations applied both to Class II gaming--that is, bingo and games similar to bingo--and to Class III gaming--including slot machines and table games--which represents the largest source of revenue in Indian gaming. Following to CRIT decision this summer, however, some tribes have challenged NIGC's authority to issue or enforce the MICS. Although without NIGC authority, oversight of Class ill gaming may be provided by tribal-State compacts, States' roles in enforcement varies widely and many have left such regulation to NIGC. In a Nationwide industry, uniform federal minimum internal control standards are appropriate. This amendment makes clear that NIGC continues to have the authority it has exercised until now to issue and enforce MICS, including the ability to inspect facilities and audit premises in order to assure compliance. Protecting the integrity of Indian gaming also requires that the NIGC's authority to review manager contracts be expanded. IGRA originally identified only one kind of contract that was subject to NIGC approval: management contracts. History has shown, however, that in order to avoid NIGC review, some contracts have been fashioned as ``consulting'' contracts or ``development'' contracts, i.e., something other than ``management'' contracts that require NIGC review. In these cases, tribes run the risk that contractors will enforce unfair contract terms, and tribes and patrons run the risk that the tribe will contract with unsuitable partners. This amendment extends NIGC approval to all significant gaming operation related contracts so that the Indian gaming industry remains, as far as possible, free from unscrupulous and unsuitable contractors. Related to protecting the integrity of Indian gaming is the issue of off-reservation gaming. When enacted in 1988, IGRA generally banned Indian gaming that was not located on reservations, however, in the interest of fairness, several exceptions to this ban were provided. Exploitation of these exceptions, not anticipated at the time IGRA was enacted, has led to a burgeoning practice by unscrupulous developers seeking to profit off Indian tribes desperate for economic development. Predictably, these ill-advised deals have invited a backlash against Indian gaming generally. These amendments to IGRA will put an end to the most troublesome of these proposals by eliminating the authority of the Secretary to take land into trust off-reservation pursuant to the so-called ``two-part determination'' provisions of Section 20. In addressing concerns about other exceptions in Section 20 for land claims, initial reservations and restored reservations, these amendments strike a balance by curbing potential abuses of these exceptions, while not unfairly penalizing those who lost their lands through no fault of their own, or even had them taken illegally--often by force. Thus, newly recognized and restored tribes may still obtain lands, and conduct gaming on them, but such lands must be in the area where the particular tribe has its most significant ties. This has been the case for most newly recognized and restored tribes, and surely is not unfair to impose on all similarly situated tribes. For tribes that successfully reclaim lands taken illegally and want to conduct gaming on them, these amendments will require congressional confirmation and the lands must be within the state where the tribe has or had its last reservation. This provision does not impair any tribe's legal rights to reclaim lands, but will discourage attempts by creative non-Indian developers to turn a tribe's legal rights into a form of extortion. Ensuring that penalties are appropriate and can be brought against the responsible party is another means of protecting the integrity of Indian gaming. To this end the bill clarifies that civil penalties can be imposed on any violator of IGRA, not just Indian tribes or management contractors. Finally, this bill will ensure fairness in the regulation of Indian gaming by assuring that all tribes bear their appropriate share of the cost of regulation so that the industry, as a whole, continues to prosper. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to amend regulatory provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The bill clarifies that the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) has authority to promulgate and enforce Minimum Internal Control Standards as to Class III gaming; grants the NIGC Chairman authority to approve contracts, and expands contract approval to include contracts not only for management contracts but also for gaming operation development contracts and consulting services, as well as for any contract the fees for which are to be paid as a percentage of gaming revenue; tightens restrictions on off-reservation gaming; gives the NIGC authority to issue complaints against any individual or entity, not just against tribes or management contractors, that violate IGRA or federal regulations; and requires all tribes to pay fees to the NIGC. When IGRA was enacted in 1988, Indian gaming was a $200 million dollar industry. Today, the industry earns $19 billion a year and is spread throughout the nation. The amendments reflect the need to re- evaluate what constitutes appropriate regulation of this vastly changed enterprise. I have always been and continue to be a supporter of the rights of Indian tribes to conduct gaming, a right guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the California v. Cabazon decision and codified in IGRA, but I also continue to believe that effective regulation of these enterprises are critical to tribes' continued success. Ensuring that the NIGC is able to continue its oversight of Class ill gaming is necessary to this effective regulation. On August 24, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision in Colorado River Indian Tribes v. NIGC (``CRIT''), ruling that the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) did not have jurisdiction to issue Class ill Minimum Internal Controls Standards (MICS). These standards regulate day-to-day operations of gaming operations. Specifically, they provide rules that designate how cash is handled by the gaming operation, prescribe surveillance over game play, and provide auditing procedures. Until the Court's decision, the NIGC had been regulating Class ill gaming through MICS since 1999. The regulations applied both to Class II gaming--that is, bingo and games similar to bingo--and to Class III gaming--including slot machines and table games--which represents the largest source of revenue in Indian gaming. Following to CRIT decision this summer, however, some tribes have challenged NIGC's authority to issue or enforce the MICS. Although without NIGC authority, oversight of Class ill gaming may be provided by tribal-State compacts, States' roles in enforcement varies widely and many have left such regulation to NIGC. In a Nationwide industry, uniform federal minimum internal control standards are appropriate. This amendment makes clear that NIGC continues to have the authority it has exercised until now to issue and enforce MICS, including the ability to inspect facilities and audit premises in order to assure compliance. Protecting the integrity of Indian gaming also requires that the NIGC's authority to review manager contracts be expanded. IGRA originally identified only one kind of contract that was subject to NIGC approval: management contracts. History has shown, however, that in order to avoid NIGC review, some contracts have been fashioned as ``consulting'' contracts or ``development'' contracts, i.e., something other than ``management'' contracts that require NIGC review. In these cases, tribes run the risk that contractors will enforce unfair contract terms, and tribes and patrons run the risk that the tribe will contract with unsuitable partners. This amendment extends NIGC approval to all significant gaming operation related contracts so that the Indian gaming industry remains, as far as possible, free from unscrupulous and unsuitable contractors. Related to protecting the integrity of Indian gaming is the issue of off-reservation gaming. When enacted in 1988, IGRA generally banned Indian gaming that was not located on reservations, however, in the interest of fairness, several exceptions to this ban were provided. Exploitation of these exceptions, not anticipated at the time IGRA was enacted, has led to a burgeoning practice by unscrupulous developers seeking to profit off Indian tribes desperate for economic development. Predictably, these ill-advised deals have invited a backlash against Indian gaming generally. These amendments to IGRA will put an end to the most troublesome of these proposals by eliminating the authority of the Secretary to take land into trust off-reservation pursuant to the so-called ``two-part determination'' provisions of Section 20. In addressing concerns about other exceptions in Section 20 for land claims, initial reservations and restored reservations, these amendments strike a balance by curbing potential abuses of these exceptions, while not unfairly penalizing those who lost their lands through no fault of their own, or even had them taken illegally--often by force. Thus, newly recognized and restored tribes may still obtain lands, and conduct gaming on them, but such lands must be in the area where the particular tribe has its most significant ties. This has been the case for most newly recognized and restored tribes, and surely is not unfair to impose on all similarly situated tribes. For tribes that successfully reclaim lands taken illegally and want to conduct gaming on them, these amendments will require congressional confirmation and the lands must be within the state where the tribe has or had its last reservation. This provision does not impair any tribe's legal rights to reclaim lands, but will discourage attempts by creative non-Indian developers to turn a tribe's legal rights into a form of extortion. Ensuring that penalties are appropriate and can be brought against the responsible party is another means of protecting the integrity of Indian gaming. To this end the bill clarifies that civil penalties can be imposed on any violator of IGRA, not just Indian tribes or management contractors. Finally, this bill will ensure fairness in the regulation of Indian gaming by assuring that all tribes bear their appropriate share of the cost of regulation so that the industry, as a whole, continues to prosper. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I understand, under the unanimous consent agreement, there are Senators who have been given time prior to the vote. I ask those Senators to come over. Otherwise, under the rules of the Senate, the time is running as we speak.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I lend my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Lott. It is measured, it is common sense, and it will help to allow Members of the Senate in the medical profession to function on a not-for-profit basis--I emphasize again, not-for-profit basis. Dr. Coburn is not fabulously wealthy. He needs to be able to break even. If one Member of the Senate is very wealthy and can afford to carry out medical duties without adequate compensation for it, that is fine. He is not seeking permission to shirk his Senate responsibilities in any way. I also appreciate the fact that he does not want to walk away from the medical profession. We need people with hands-on health care experience. One of the greatest challenges we face in the coming years is health care costs and health care issues. Would it not be wonderful to have a person who has daily hands-on experience with these health care issues, which is $40 trillion in unfunded liability in the case of Medicare? He is not turning Senate rules on their head. Somebody is going to have to explain to me how we can have a blind trust and make money from a blind trust, but we cannot make money from a break-even standpoint in the practice of medicine. It is bizarre. It is bizarre. He has demonstrated he is more than a full-time legislator. He has offered dozens of amendments on bills in his first year in office, not making every Member of the Senate happy when he is doing so. No one can question his tenacity, his work ethic. As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Senator Coburn has already held 20 oversight hearings. I believe Senator Coburn can walk and chew gum. I believe he can practice medicine when he is back with his constituents in Oklahoma and serve that State even more admirably, serving them in more capabilities than one. I wish I had the capabilities the doctor from Oklahoma has. I hope there is an overwhelming vote in favor of the Lott motion. I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues. I yield.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the In Re Tribal Lobbying Matters, Et Al. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last week the Amtrak Board of Directors voted to remove Antrak's president, David Gunn. I think that action is regrettable, and I commend Mr. Gunn for his leadership during his 3\1/ 2\ years at Amtrak's helm. Amtrak has always been a money-losing proposition. I am afraid that it may always be so. But no one should hold Amtrak's, president accountable entirely for this fact. Congress and the administration are also accountable. Despite repeated efforts to reauthorize and reform this money-losing proposition, we have not had the collective will to make the hard decisions that need to be made to finally turn Amtrak around--and that includes altering Amtrak's route system so that it operates where it actually attracts ridership. I have known many of Amtrak's presidents over the years and in my judgment, David Gunn was one of the most capable. Not only did he hold an impressive and lengthy career in the rail industry prior to coming out of retirement to take the Amtrak job, I found him to be a man of integrity. When he testified before hearings I chaired in the Senate Commerce Committee, Mr. Gunn didn't mince words. When I first asked him about the so-called ``glidepath to self-sufficiency'' which his predecessor continually touted, David Gunn didn't hesitate to inform the committee that it was a sham. Mr. Gunn and I didn't always see eye-to-eye. Indeed, I disagreed strongly with his unyielding views about the continuation of Amtrak's long distance trains. But I respected the fact that he always spoke his views even when it meant he wouldn't be telling people what they wanted to hear. He faced head on the many problems with Acela and he was committed to getting Amtrak's escalating costs under control. Again, he is a man of integrity and I commend him for his service.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Iraq amendment under consideration today constitutes no run-of-the-mill resolution and reporting requirement. It is much more important than that, and likely to be watched closely in Iraq--more closely there, in fact, than in America. In considering this amendment, I urge my colleagues to think hard about the message we send to the Iraqi people. I believe that, after considering how either version will be viewed in Iraq, we must reject both. Reading through each version, one gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the drawdown of American troops. But America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, it is to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission. If that means we can draw down troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that is wonderful. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we should increase our numbers there. But that is not what these amendments suggest. They signal that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress's mind, and suggest that we are more interested in exit than victory. A date is not an exit strategy. This only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near, and alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory. Instead, both our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success in Iraq and we will win this war. The Democratic version requires the President to develop a withdrawal plan. Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police forces, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they learn that the Democrats are calling for a withdrawal plan? The Republican alternative, while an improvement, indicates that events in 2006 should create the conditions for a redeployment of U.S. forces. Are these the messages we wish to send? Do we wish to respond to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who have put their faith and trust in America and the Iraqi Government, that our No. 1 priority is now bringing our people home? Do we want to tell insurgents that their violence has successfully ground us down, that their horrific acts will, with enough time, be successful? No, we must not send these messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory. If we can reach victory in 2006, that would be wonderful. But should 2006 not be the landmark year that these amendments anticipate, we will have once again unrealistically raised the expectations of the American people. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a war we must win. I repeat that. This is a war we must win. The benefits of success and the consequences of failure are too profound for us to do otherwise. The road ahead is likely to be long and hard, but America must follow it through to success. While the sponsors of each version of this amendment might argue that their exact language supports this view, perceptions here and in Iraq are critical. By suggesting that withdrawal, rather than victory, is on the minds of America's legislators, we do this great cause a grave disservice.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, November 16, 2005, at 10 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the In Re Tribal Lobbying Matters, Et Al. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. There has been a mobility capability study which indicates that we have an acceptable number for this capability. We are looking at cuts in defense spending, and there are a lot of tremendous cost overruns. We are looking at rapidly escalating procurement costs. These additional aircraft are not needed. They are not needed today. I believe we have to at some point have some kind of discipline and listen to what we need and have in capabilities, and this is not one of them. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. Mr. President, I say again on this issue, No. 1, it is not going away. It is not going away. If, through some parliamentary maneuver, temporarily the will of the majority of both Houses, both bicameral and bipartisan, is thwarted, it will be on every vehicle that goes through this body because you cannot override the majority of the American people and their elected representatives in a functioning democracy. No one wants this issue to go away more than I. This issue is incredibly harmful to the United States of America and our image throughout the world. The article on the front page of the Washington Post the day before yesterday, describing prison systems that are run by the CIA--the CIA wasn't set up to run prisons. I point out there is no nation in the world that faces a greater threat of terrorist attacks on a day-to-day basis than the State of Israel. The State of Israel Supreme Court decided, and its military and civil Government has implemented, a prohibition against cruel and inhumane treatment and torture, and they do not practice it. They do practice interrogation and, through various techniques--many of which I am sure are classified--that are not violations of the rules laid down by their Supreme Court, they obtain information, valuable and necessary information. Why is it some people feel we should carve out an exemption for a branch of our Government to practice cruel and inhumane treatment or even torture? Let me tell you what the consequence of that is, in case of another war. If we get in another war and one of our men or women in the armed services is captured, they will be turned over to the secret police because they will use the same rationale that is being argued by the proponents for the continuation of cruel and inhumane treatment and torture, that they have to have this information. We all know we need intelligence. We all know it is vital. We know how important it is. But to do differently not only offends our values as Americans but undermines our war efforts because abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, us in the war against terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas because inevitably these abuses become public, as was revealed--or at least a prison system was revealed; I don't know what goes on in them--on the front page of one of our major newspapers. If we inflict this cruel and inhumane treatment, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we cannot let prisoner abuse tarnish our image. Yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. That is why part of this amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees--so there is no confusion. Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field and that is not just my opinion, but it is the opinion of GEN Colin Powell, GEN Joseph Hoar, GEN John Shalikashvili, RADM John Hutson, RADM Don Guter, and many others, those who have had the experience of being involved with treatment of detainees/POWs. These and other distinguished officers believe the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere took place in part because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions. My friend from South Carolina is very aware and may chronicle the development of these guidelines for treatment of prisoners which was done without the consent of the military uniformed lawyers, and then a couple of months later, because of how outrageous they were, they had to be retracted. It is still not clear. It is still not clear what the practices are that are sanctioned in treatment of prisoners. The second part of this amendment is a prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. If that doesn't sound new, that is because it is not. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. To mention a few examples: The prohibitions are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory; and the binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate. Nevertheless, the administration has held that the prohibition does not legally apply to foreigners held overseas. They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. That means America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment. How far have we come? What this also means is confusion about the rules becomes rampant again. With this simple amendment we can restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no, and from all I have seen, America's answer has always been no. I noted this for my colleagues' consideration when I mentioned this earlier. While the State of Israel is no stranger to terrorist attacks, in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision to this effect--it contained words we may wish to reflect on today. I quote from the Israeli Supreme Court: A democratic, freedom-loving society does not accept that investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering the truth. The rules pertaining to investigations are important to a democratic state. They reflect its character. As I have said many times in response to a few Members of the Senate: It is not about them; it is about us. Let there be no question about America's character. In deciding these rules, each Member of this body has a vital role. Under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the Congress has the responsibility for making--I quote from the U.S. Constitution: `` . . . rules concerning captures on land and water.'' Not the executive branch, not the courts, but Congress. Our brave men and women in the field need clarity. America needs to show the world that the terrible photos and stories of prison abuse are a thing of the past. Let's step up to this responsibility and speak clearly on this critical issue. We should do it not because we wish to coddle terrorists; we should do it not because we view them as anything but evil and terrible; we should do it because we are Americans and because we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people, no matter how evil or terrible they may be. America stands for a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists--and we will win. I have said it before, but it bears repeating: The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They do not deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they are, it is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies, and we can never allow our enemies to take those values away. I hope we could adopt this by voice vote at the appropriate time. Since we voted recently by a vote of 90 to 9, I don't see any reason why we should force people to be on record again. Again, my heartfelt thanks to both Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I hope we can make this issue go away so we can begin repairing the image of the United States of America throughout the world and still carry on a very effective intelligence capability this Nation so badly needs. I thank my colleague. Exhibit 1 Navy League of the United States, Arlington, VA, November 1, 2005. Hon. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: On behalf of the more than 65,000 members of the Navy League of the United States, I want to express our support for Sections 8154 and 8155 in the Senate's version of H.R. 2863, the Defense Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2006. These legislative provisions establish the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations and the Convention Against Torture as the uniform standard for interrogation of individuals detained by the Department of Defense, and prohibit degrading treatment of detainees. We encourage you to support adoption of Sections 8154 and 8155 in conference negotiations on H.R. 2863. America's hard- earned reputation for respect of the rule of law and human dignity is an integral part of our greatness as a Nation. The world will judge us by our actions, and our troops have a proven record of excellence. Establishing a written standard for interrogation will only underscore this superb record. The Navy League is proud to align itself with the position of numerous credible voices in support of this action. On behalf of the men and women of the sea services, for whom the Navy League has advocated for more than 100 years, thank you for your consideration of this important concern. Sincerely, John A. Panneton.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my dear friend. Maybe he does not want me to recall that was 32 years ago when we first had the opportunity of knowing each other, where I served under, with many layers in between, then Secretary of the Navy Senator Warner. I remember the many kindnesses he extended to me and my friends who had returned at that time. I also recall--and I do not want to take too much time of this body--that Senator Warner at that time had to make a very tough decision about a couple of people who had not performed to the standards we expected in that environment in Hanoi. Sometimes tough decisions have to be made, and I think Senator Warner made a very correct decision at that time. I might add, he has not aged a bit since that moment when I first saw him on my return.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that both Senator Warner and Senator Levin be added as original cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the one that was adopted by a vote of 90 to 9 on the appropriations bill, and it does the following: Establishes the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and, two, prohibits cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. Government. Because of the extraordinary support for this legislation and its importance to our men and women in uniform, it is imperative that these provisions remain on the appropriations measure which is now in conference, although I understand the conferees have not been appointed on the House side. There is a rumor that with the inclusion in the authorizing bill, then an argument will be made to have it taken out of the appropriations bill, and then the authorizing bill would never reach agreement in conference. That is a bit Machiavellian. Most of all, it is very important because it thwarts the will of 90 Members of the Senate, an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives, and an overwhelming majority of the American people. I hope very sincerely that the inclusion of this provision on the authorization bill, which is important in the authorizing process, does not in any way give an excuse to have it removed from the appropriations bill. I commend Congressman Murtha for his leadership and efforts to date to offer a motion to instruct conferees to keep this amendment intact without modification. I hope that no one seeks procedural maneuvers to thwart the overwhelming majorities in both Chambers. I thank the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, particularly our leader Senator Warner, as well as the ranking Democrat, Senator Levin, who have provided guidance, leadership, and encouragement on this very important issue. I am very grateful for their leadership. Let me be clear.