John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my amendment No. 1557, which is at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. It is modified.

Mr. McCAIN. As modified.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment No. 1556 be considered at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to propose this amendment, the Senator from Alabama be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, the amendment be set aside, and the Senator from South Carolina be allowed to propose his amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the, Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005. The following is an overview of the bill, title by title, which is followed by a discussion of the reasons for the measure. Title I: Resolution of historical accounting claims in Cobell v. Norton Title I of the bill would provide for a lump sum settlement of the claims for an historical accounting that have been asserted in the case of Cobell v. Norton. The section would establish a Settlement Fund which would be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury and a Special Master. The total amount of the fund is left blank in this introduced version of the bill. The Committee on Indian Affairs will hold a hearing on this soon and have further discussions with the parties, hopefully to reach a consensus number for the settlement. The settlement fund would be distributed to individual Indians using two formulas: part of the fund would be distributed among all claimants equally, and part would be distributed under a formula that allocates funds in accordance with a through-put analysis--account holders with high volume accounts would receive more than those with low volume accounts. A portion of the fund would be held in reserve for payment of attorneys fees at an hourly rate, for administration of the fund and for claimants who successfully challenge their distribution in court. If any of the reserved funds remain unused, they are to be distributed to the claimants under the formula. Title II: Indian Trust Asset Management Policy Review Commission Title II of the bill establishes and sets forth the duties, responsibilities, and authority of a 12-member Indian Trust Asset Management Review Commission. The Commission would have two principal areas of responsibility: 1. Reviewing all current trust resource management laws, (including regulations), and the Secretary of Interior's trust resource management practices, and 2. Following that review, preparing a report to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Committee on Resources and the Secretary of Interior containing the Commission's recommendations for improving the management of those assets. Title III: Indian Trust Resource Management Demonstration Project Title III of the bill establishes an eight-year Indian Trust Resource Management Demonstration Project. The demonstration project would initially be open to all Indian tribes participating in section 131 of the Fiscal Year 2005 Interior Appropriations Act and an additional 30 Indian tribes that submit applications to the Secretary. Participating tribes would negotiate a ``trust resource management plan'' with the Secretary, which would remain in effect for the full duration of the demonstration project but would be subject to modification or termination annually. A participating tribe would be allowed to negotiate with the Department of Interior as to how the trust asset management budget for the reservation would be prioritized. Self- governance tribes participating in the demonstration project would also be permitted to develop their own ``customized'' trust asset management systems and practices. Trust assets subject to the plan would have to be managed in accordance with 1. The Federal trust responsibility and 2. Certain basic standards set forth in the section. The trust asset management plan itself would not create, diminish or increase the liability of either the United States or the Indian tribe. The Indian tribe would have the right to terminate the plan by giving the Secretary notice, but termination would not be effective until the beginning of the next fiscal year. Title IV: Fractional Interest Purchase and Consolidation Program Title IV of the bill would be an amendment to Section 213 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 USC 2212). As currently written, Section 213 of ILCA authorizes the Secretary to purchase fractional interests in land in accordance with certain requirements. One problem with this program is that the fractional interests are so small that an offer of fair market value is such a small amount of money that there is little incentive to sell. Accordingly, the amendment would be a new subsection to ILCA Section 213 that would authorize the Secretary to offer more than fair market value for fractional interests in tracts of land that have 20 or more trust or restricted fractional interests--the offer would be fair market value PLUS an additional amount of at least $100 but not more than $350. Also, this title would add another new subsection to ILCA section 213 that would authorize the Secretary to offer, along with an offer to purchase any interest or interests under section 213, an additional amount of money to settle any and all mismanagement claims against the United States that the interest owner may have in connection with the tract of land of which the fractional interest is a part. The interest owner would have the option of selling his or her interest to the Secretary with or without a settlement of mismanagement claims, i.e., the settlement of mismanagement claims could not be made a mandatory condition of the sale of the interest. Also included as part of this title is a provision dealing with tracts of extremely fractionated land--specifically, tracts of land that consist of 200 or more fractional trust interests. If the Secretary determines that a tract is owned by 200 or more individuals, she is authorized to make the offer (not less than four times fair market value) via certified mail to each and every trust interest owner in the tract. The offer would include a notice that says they have 90 days to reject the offer or it will be deemed to have been accepted. It would include a pre-addressed (back to the Secretary) postage-paid ``notice of rejection'' form that the offeree may use to reject the offer. If they fail to mail the form back in time, they will be given another notice stating that they may withdraw the offer by mailing a postage pre-paid ``notice of withdrawal'' form back to the Secretary within 30 days. If They fail to do that in time, the offer is deemed to be accepted. Title V: Restructuring the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee This title of the bill would reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians under a new office within the Department of Interior, an Under Secretary for Indian Affairs. The title provides that the Under Secretary has responsibility for the administration of all Indian trust and non-trust matters, including, after a transition period ending on December 31, 2008, matters currently within the scope of authority of the Special Trustee for American Indians under the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 USC 4041 et seq.). The Under Secretary would oversee a new Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight, but the Special Trustee would continue performing his duties under the 1994 Act until December 31, 2008, at which time the OST would be abolished. Title VI: Annual Audit of Indian Trust Funds by the Government Accountability Office Title VI of the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to contract for an annual audit of all funds held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian Tribe or an individual Indian. The audit would be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles and the Single Audit Act. Copies of each audit report must be submitted to the Secretary of Interior, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and the House Committee on Resources. Reasons for the bill: the performance of the United States over the past 125 years in its capacity as trustee and manager of Indian trust and restricted lands is not something to be proud of. The policy of allotting Indian tribal lands, which was made the general Federal Indian policy in the 1880s, was one of several federal ``experiments'' in Indian matters that have had regrettable results both for Native Americans and for the Government. This policy of the 19th Century has come back to haunt us now in the form of fractionated ownership of allotted lands--where some parcels of land are owned by hundreds and in some cases over a thousand different Indian owners. This fractionation of ownership has led to a proliferation of individual Indian money accounts ``IIM accounts,'' now numbering in the hundreds of thousands, all of which the Federal Government has a trust obligation to track and manage. The staggering number of IIM accounts--along with decades of mismanagement on the part of Government officials--contributed to the conditions that led to the filing of the Federal class action here in the District of Columbia known as Cobell v. Norton. A lot has happened in that litigation since it was filed 9 years ago, much of it reported in newspapers across the country, but I think it is fair to say that one thing the case has shown is that the United States has not lived up to its duty as a fiduciary to the thousands of Indian beneficiaries of IIM accounts. The principal objectives of the Cobell case are to obtain a complete historical accounting of IIM accounts and to reform the trust itself. The Government has been ordered to perform a complete, detailed accounting of transactions relating to IIM accounts and to submit and implement a plan to reform the trust. In hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, officials from the Department of Interior have stated that the cost of doing the accounting may run in to multiple billions of dollars, and representatives of the plaintiffs in the case as well as the GAO, have stated that much of this accounting cannot be done due to missing or destroyed records, information, or data relating to the IIM accounts. The bill I introduce today would provide a resolution of the class action relating to an historical accounting and would also bring a number of important changes to the Indian trust asset management system. In lieu of an accounting, the bill would create a settlement fund and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a formula for distributing the fund to the beneficial owners of IIM accounts in full settlement for losses, errors, and unpaid interest in their IIM accounts. Several other aspects of the bill are included for the purpose of reforming the Indian trust management system. For example, the bill would create a special commission charged with the responsibility of examining current Indian trust management laws, regulations and practices and reporting back to the authorizing committees of jurisdiction in the Senate and House with recommended revisions of these laws, regulations and practices. It would also restructure the Bureau of Indian Affairs under an Under Secretary For Indian Affairs, phasing out the Office of the Special Trustee whose responsibilities would be transferred to the Under Secretary after December 31, 2008. I would like to thank the National Congress of American Indians, the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, representatives of the plaintiffs as well as many other stakeholders for their considerable and helpful input in developing this legislation. The bill does not include everything that they requested, and they may have issues with certain aspects of the bill as it is now written. That said, the bill is offered as a starting point for discussion. I do not think that there is any provision in the bill that is immutable, closed to debate or negotiation. Hopefully the stakeholders will remain engaged and continue to provide me with information and suggestions to make it a better bill, a bill that brings substantial improvements to the administration and management of Indian trust assets. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we all know, last night the President of the United States announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. The President noted in his remarks that one of the most consequential decisions a President makes is his nomination of a Justice to our Nation's highest Court. By nominating Judge Roberts, I believe the President has met the challenge. I commend him for choosing a thoroughly accomplished jurist and attorney to rise to this country's highest Court. I point out that the selection process the White House and the President went through was thorough and, indeed, viewed as satisfactory--in fact, praised significantly by Members on both sides of the aisle. The President and his staff consulted with more than 70 Members of the Senate. The President reviewed the credentials of many well-qualified candidates, and the President also met with a number of potential nominees. I believe the consultation part of the advise and consent process we go through was more than met by the President and his staff. The process has resulted in a nominee who truly stands on his achievement. Presidents can and sometimes have nominated Justices for political reasons alone. However, this President has done something truly praiseworthy in nominating Judge Roberts. He focused on the merits and picked a distinguished attorney with a keen legal mind and an impressive record of accomplishment. I think all of us are aware of Judge Roberts' academic background. We are aware of his clerking for Justice William Rehnquist, his service in the Department of Justice and, very importantly, being a member of the small group of lawyers who have practiced before the Supreme Court. In fact, Judge Roberts has appeared before and argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court some 39 times. The process has been followed and has resulted in an outstanding nominee. There are questions about whether Judge Roberts will answer questions concerning specific issues. I think that issue was put to rest in the Breyer and Ginsburg nominations where, appropriately, they did not answer questions that would relate to cases that would be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. There may be some question about whether Judge Roberts is conservative. I think the President of the United States made it very clear in the last campaign, and I personally heard him state on numerous occasions, that he would appoint as a Supreme Court Justice, in the event of a vacancy, a person who strictly interpreted the Constitution of the United States. So just as in the previous administration President Clinton appointed judges such as Justices Breyer and Ginsburg who would be viewed by some as liberal, so I think it is entirely appropriate that Justice Roberts be viewed as ``conservative,'' if conservative means someone who strictly interprets the Constitution of the United States in making these incredibly important decisions that are made by the U.S. Supreme Court. As is well known, I am a card-carrying member of the Gang of 14. One of the criteria of the Gang of 14 is that we would not filibuster a nominee to a court or the Supreme Court unless it was under ``extraordinary circumstances.'' I do not speak for the other Members. Each of those Members speaks for himself or herself. I do believe--at least in my opinion, I am convinced--that even though various Members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle may oppose and vote against Justice Roberts' nomination, and perhaps for well-founded reasons, that by no means, by any stretch of the imagination, would Justice Roberts, because of his credentials, because of his service, because of his extraordinary qualifications, meet the extraordinary circumstances criteria. Again, I only speak for myself, but having been in on those negotiations about extraordinary circumstances for hundreds of hours, I believe Judge Roberts deserves an up-or-down vote, and I hope the other members of that group would also agree with me. So I think this is a good day for America. We start a process which we should complete by the first week in October so that Justice Roberts can sit in the fall session of the U.S. Supreme Court. I think many of us watching him on television last night as he stated his profound appreciation for the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in our constitutional democracy, as well as his deep regard for the Court as an institution--this is without a doubt a man who is not only fit to face the magnitude of the task before him but who has the temperament and the judgment to understand the seriousness of his possible service as a member of our Nation's highest Court. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the, Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005. The following is an overview of the bill, title by title, which is followed by a discussion of the reasons for the measure. Title I: Resolution of historical accounting claims in Cobell v. Norton Title I of the bill would provide for a lump sum settlement of the claims for an historical accounting that have been asserted in the case of Cobell v. Norton. The section would establish a Settlement Fund which would be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury and a Special Master. The total amount of the fund is left blank in this introduced version of the bill. The Committee on Indian Affairs will hold a hearing on this soon and have further discussions with the parties, hopefully to reach a consensus number for the settlement. The settlement fund would be distributed to individual Indians using two formulas: part of the fund would be distributed among all claimants equally, and part would be distributed under a formula that allocates funds in accordance with a through-put analysis--account holders with high volume accounts would receive more than those with low volume accounts. A portion of the fund would be held in reserve for payment of attorneys fees at an hourly rate, for administration of the fund and for claimants who successfully challenge their distribution in court. If any of the reserved funds remain unused, they are to be distributed to the claimants under the formula. Title II: Indian Trust Asset Management Policy Review Commission Title II of the bill establishes and sets forth the duties, responsibilities, and authority of a 12-member Indian Trust Asset Management Review Commission. The Commission would have two principal areas of responsibility: 1. Reviewing all current trust resource management laws, (including regulations), and the Secretary of Interior's trust resource management practices, and 2. Following that review, preparing a report to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the House Committee on Resources and the Secretary of Interior containing the Commission's recommendations for improving the management of those assets. Title III: Indian Trust Resource Management Demonstration Project Title III of the bill establishes an eight-year Indian Trust Resource Management Demonstration Project. The demonstration project would initially be open to all Indian tribes participating in section 131 of the Fiscal Year 2005 Interior Appropriations Act and an additional 30 Indian tribes that submit applications to the Secretary. Participating tribes would negotiate a ``trust resource management plan'' with the Secretary, which would remain in effect for the full duration of the demonstration project but would be subject to modification or termination annually. A participating tribe would be allowed to negotiate with the Department of Interior as to how the trust asset management budget for the reservation would be prioritized. Self- governance tribes participating in the demonstration project would also be permitted to develop their own ``customized'' trust asset management systems and practices. Trust assets subject to the plan would have to be managed in accordance with 1. The Federal trust responsibility and 2. Certain basic standards set forth in the section. The trust asset management plan itself would not create, diminish or increase the liability of either the United States or the Indian tribe. The Indian tribe would have the right to terminate the plan by giving the Secretary notice, but termination would not be effective until the beginning of the next fiscal year. Title IV: Fractional Interest Purchase and Consolidation Program Title IV of the bill would be an amendment to Section 213 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 USC 2212). As currently written, Section 213 of ILCA authorizes the Secretary to purchase fractional interests in land in accordance with certain requirements. One problem with this program is that the fractional interests are so small that an offer of fair market value is such a small amount of money that there is little incentive to sell. Accordingly, the amendment would be a new subsection to ILCA Section 213 that would authorize the Secretary to offer more than fair market value for fractional interests in tracts of land that have 20 or more trust or restricted fractional interests--the offer would be fair market value PLUS an additional amount of at least $100 but not more than $350. Also, this title would add another new subsection to ILCA section 213 that would authorize the Secretary to offer, along with an offer to purchase any interest or interests under section 213, an additional amount of money to settle any and all mismanagement claims against the United States that the interest owner may have in connection with the tract of land of which the fractional interest is a part. The interest owner would have the option of selling his or her interest to the Secretary with or without a settlement of mismanagement claims, i.e., the settlement of mismanagement claims could not be made a mandatory condition of the sale of the interest. Also included as part of this title is a provision dealing with tracts of extremely fractionated land--specifically, tracts of land that consist of 200 or more fractional trust interests. If the Secretary determines that a tract is owned by 200 or more individuals, she is authorized to make the offer (not less than four times fair market value) via certified mail to each and every trust interest owner in the tract. The offer would include a notice that says they have 90 days to reject the offer or it will be deemed to have been accepted. It would include a pre-addressed (back to the Secretary) postage-paid ``notice of rejection'' form that the offeree may use to reject the offer. If they fail to mail the form back in time, they will be given another notice stating that they may withdraw the offer by mailing a postage pre-paid ``notice of withdrawal'' form back to the Secretary within 30 days. If They fail to do that in time, the offer is deemed to be accepted. Title V: Restructuring the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee This title of the bill would reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians under a new office within the Department of Interior, an Under Secretary for Indian Affairs. The title provides that the Under Secretary has responsibility for the administration of all Indian trust and non-trust matters, including, after a transition period ending on December 31, 2008, matters currently within the scope of authority of the Special Trustee for American Indians under the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 USC 4041 et seq.). The Under Secretary would oversee a new Office of Trust Reform Implementation and Oversight, but the Special Trustee would continue performing his duties under the 1994 Act until December 31, 2008, at which time the OST would be abolished. Title VI: Annual Audit of Indian Trust Funds by the Government Accountability Office Title VI of the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to contract for an annual audit of all funds held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian Tribe or an individual Indian. The audit would be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles and the Single Audit Act. Copies of each audit report must be submitted to the Secretary of Interior, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and the House Committee on Resources. Reasons for the bill: the performance of the United States over the past 125 years in its capacity as trustee and manager of Indian trust and restricted lands is not something to be proud of. The policy of allotting Indian tribal lands, which was made the general Federal Indian policy in the 1880s, was one of several federal ``experiments'' in Indian matters that have had regrettable results both for Native Americans and for the Government. This policy of the 19th Century has come back to haunt us now in the form of fractionated ownership of allotted lands--where some parcels of land are owned by hundreds and in some cases over a thousand different Indian owners. This fractionation of ownership has led to a proliferation of individual Indian money accounts ``IIM accounts,'' now numbering in the hundreds of thousands, all of which the Federal Government has a trust obligation to track and manage. The staggering number of IIM accounts--along with decades of mismanagement on the part of Government officials--contributed to the conditions that led to the filing of the Federal class action here in the District of Columbia known as Cobell v. Norton. A lot has happened in that litigation since it was filed 9 years ago, much of it reported in newspapers across the country, but I think it is fair to say that one thing the case has shown is that the United States has not lived up to its duty as a fiduciary to the thousands of Indian beneficiaries of IIM accounts. The principal objectives of the Cobell case are to obtain a complete historical accounting of IIM accounts and to reform the trust itself. The Government has been ordered to perform a complete, detailed accounting of transactions relating to IIM accounts and to submit and implement a plan to reform the trust. In hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, officials from the Department of Interior have stated that the cost of doing the accounting may run in to multiple billions of dollars, and representatives of the plaintiffs in the case as well as the GAO, have stated that much of this accounting cannot be done due to missing or destroyed records, information, or data relating to the IIM accounts. The bill I introduce today would provide a resolution of the class action relating to an historical accounting and would also bring a number of important changes to the Indian trust asset management system. In lieu of an accounting, the bill would create a settlement fund and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a formula for distributing the fund to the beneficial owners of IIM accounts in full settlement for losses, errors, and unpaid interest in their IIM accounts. Several other aspects of the bill are included for the purpose of reforming the Indian trust management system. For example, the bill would create a special commission charged with the responsibility of examining current Indian trust management laws, regulations and practices and reporting back to the authorizing committees of jurisdiction in the Senate and House with recommended revisions of these laws, regulations and practices. It would also restructure the Bureau of Indian Affairs under an Under Secretary For Indian Affairs, phasing out the Office of the Special Trustee whose responsibilities would be transferred to the Under Secretary after December 31, 2008. I would like to thank the National Congress of American Indians, the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, representatives of the plaintiffs as well as many other stakeholders for their considerable and helpful input in developing this legislation. The bill does not include everything that they requested, and they may have issues with certain aspects of the bill as it is now written. That said, the bill is offered as a starting point for discussion. I do not think that there is any provision in the bill that is immutable, closed to debate or negotiation. Hopefully the stakeholders will remain engaged and continue to provide me with information and suggestions to make it a better bill, a bill that brings substantial improvements to the administration and management of Indian trust assets. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I again thank my friend and colleague from Kentucky for his commitment to democracy and freedom in Burma in general and his continuing advocacy on behalf of this Nobel Prize winner and truly great citizen of the world. One of the issues I would like to discuss with the Senator from Kentucky is the fact that a few years ago, Burma was allowed into ASEAN on the premise that there would be some kind of progress made and by being part of this organization they would seek some kind of legitimacy. Now, apparently, next year ASEAN is scheduled to meet in Burma. I wondered about the Senator's thoughts about that. Maybe we should give that some more attention as the time approaches.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senators McConnell and Feinstein for their leadership in renewing the sanctions contained in the 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. As we renew the sanctions, I note with sadness that the situation inside Burma grows ever dimmer. The military junta in that country controls the population through a campaign of violence and terror, and the lack of freedom and justice there is simply appalling. The Burmese regime has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers, and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Political activists remain in prison, including elected members of Parliament, and last month the courageous woman Aung San Suu Kyi celebrated her 60th birthday in captivity. Her resolve in the face of tyranny inspires me and I believe every individual who holds democracy dear. Because she stands for freedom, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents: peace, freedom, and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run the country have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shine brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom and those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. I know my friend from Kentucky has been very involved in this issue. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Kentucky and I engage in a brief colloquy.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know my friend from Kentucky and the Senator from California and all Members will renew our assurance to the people of Burma and their brave leader that we will not rest and we will not stop until they achieve freedom and democracy, which is a God- given right. I thank my colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend for his continued sponsorship for and renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I believe it has had an effect inside Burma. I do believe the people who are in prisons and mistreated, as well as San Suu Kyi herself, are aware of our efforts on their behalf. I thank my friend from Kentucky for his continued efforts on behalf of these people. I believe we should continue to ask that one day they will achieve their freedom--not if, but when. I think the Senator's efforts and our passage of this legislation will help get them there. I look forward to exploring other options and ways we can put continued pressure on this bunch of thugs to at least allow this brave woman a chance to live some semblance of a normal life. She certainly deserves it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support passage of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This important legislation funds the international development and assistance portion of our national budget and with its passage, we acknowledge the vital nature of these programs. Supporting foreign aid, military assistance, development funds, democracy promotion activities and other programs should be a matter of course--something that America does as part of its responsibilities as the global superpower. This year's bill provides $31.8 billion to carry out our many fore operations programs. I commend Senator McConnell, chairman of the foreign operations subcommittee, and Senator Leahy, ranking member of the subcommittee, on developing an appropriations measure that is generally light on pork. There are, nevertheless, dozens of earmarks, especially in the report language, including a few that simply leave me scratching my head. I am a longstanding champion of robust funding of America's international affairs budget. But I ask, whether that budget should include an earmark of half a million dollars for the Neotropical Raptor Center in Panama. I wonder if the birds of prey the center seeks to protect have instead descended on our appropriations bill. Likewise, the report includes a $2 million earmark for ``activities to protect the orangutan from extinction'' and directs that some of these funds go to the Orangutan Foundation. I note with regret that, once again, the Senate has failed to pass an authorization bill prior to considering this legislation. Again, the responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be distinct. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has the responsibility for laying out a blueprint for the policies and funding levels of USAID and the Department of State and their programs. I hope that the Senate will finish consideration of the State Department authorization bill, so that the Senate will have the benefit of the Foreign Relations Committee's recommendations. We should not continue to fund unauthorized programs and risk marginalizing our authorizing committees. With that said, most of the provisions in the bill under consideration serve America's interests and values in powerful ways. Let me comment on just one group. This year's version of the Foreign Operations bill states that $495 million of our annual aid to Egypt ``shall be provided with the understanding that Egypt will undertake significant economic political reforms which are additional to those which were undertaken in previous fiscal years.'' The bill also withholds $227 million in economic reform assistance until the Secretary of State determines that the Government of Egypt has met its 2005 economic reform commitments--commitments it made to the United States. Finally, the bill directs that nongovernmental organizations providing democracy and governance assistance shall not be subject to prior approval by Government of Egypt. I believe that we should have conditioned aid to Egypt in this way for years, and I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for these bold steps. The Government of Egypt has, for too long, gotten a free pass from the United States. We are grateful for its friendship with the U.S. and its peace agreement with Israel, but its lack of real reform offends the universal values we hold dear and poses a security threat to the United States. I would also like to note that the report language contains words of support for the ADVANCE Democracy Act. Working with Senator Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the ADVANCE Democracy Act, I will continue work toward passage of that bill this year, and I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their support. I hope that we can work together to move the ADVANCE bill through the Senate in the near future. I must once again convey my gratitude to the members of the subcommittee. Their attention and commitment to supporting vital programs has provided a sound bill with which to fund our foreign operations for the coming fiscal year.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I use my minute, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl and Senator Brownback be added as cosponsors.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which we passed 7 months ago, authorized 8,000 new detention beds. This bill provides for about a quarter of that. The Border Patrol now releases 90 percent of the people they catch through voluntary repatriation--90 percent. My friends, anybody who comes into the United States of America across our southern border today and is from a country other than Mexico, there is a 95-percent chance they will continue their journey to wherever they want to go. We don't have enough detention facilities. We don't have enough beds. Mr. President, here is a story: Twenty Brazilians glided across the Rio Grande in rubber rafts propelled by Mexican smugglers who leaned forward and breast-stroked through the gentle current. Once on the U.S. side, the Brazilians scrambled ashore and started looking for the Border Patrol. Their quick and well- rehearsed surrender was part of a growing trend that is demoralizing the Border Patrol and beckoning a rising number of illegal immigrants from countries beyond Mexico. ``We used to chase them; now they're chasing us,'' Border Patrol Agent Gus Balderas said as he frisked the Brazilians. Mr. President, we have to provide sufficient facilities.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before discussing the Homeland Security appropriations bill, I would like to take a moment to express my deepest condolences to our British friends as they deal with the aftermath of the terrorist bombings in London. Once again the world has seen the stark contrast between brutal terrorism, with its lust for violence, and liberal democracy, with its love for freedom. The British people knew, after September 11, 2001, that there could be no accommodation with this brand of fanaticism, and under the visionary leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair, Britain stood with America in our time of need. Now, in Britain's time of need, we stand with our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic. Our bond, always strong, is even firmer. I believe I can speak for many Americans when I say that I felt the attack in London as if it were an attack on the United States; the hurt of our British friends is like that of our own countrymen. The relationship between American and the United Kingdom is unlike any other, and the world is better off for it. At this tragic time, all people in that great country must know that America is with them, as allies, as friends, as brothers and sisters. They are not alone, for they must know that they remain in our hearts, in our minds, and in our prayers, as we have experienced a similar sense of loss and pain on September 11, 2001. Together we will not allow terrorists to destroy the way of life that our two great nations have endeavored over centuries to build. The four bombings in London have now lead many of us to take a second look at the Homeland Security appropriations bill to ensure that we are adequately securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. In addition to appropriating funds, however, we must also act on authorizing measures to promote the security of our nation's transportation system. Earlier this week, I introduced the Rail Security Act of 2005, which is nearly identical to legislation passed unanimously by the Senate last year. I hope that the bombings in Madrid and London will spur this Congress to take needed action and pass this important authorizing legislation. I commend the chairman and subcommittee chairman, and the ranking members, on their efforts to produce a funding measure that best meets our Nation's security objectives. For the third consecutive year, the committee has reported out a Homeland Security bill with minimal earmarks. As evidenced by the recent bombings in London, this bill is too important to the security of the American people to be bogged down with unreasonable earmarks and no essential policy changes and directives. The Department of Homeland Security plays a crucial role in our Nation's defense, particularly during these uncertain times as our country continues to be engaged in fighting a war against terror. We must be vigilant in ensuring that the Department has the right tools to protect our Nation's air space, borders, ports of entry, and travel infrastructure. We also must ensure that our first responders are adequately funded to protect citizens in the event of a national emergency. At the same time, resources are limited and this bill recognizes that and seeks to ensure that the Department optimizes all received funds. The Department of Homeland Security's most vital function is protecting our Nation's borders. The committee's bill does provide for an increased focus on border security efforts and I commend them for their attention to these critical funding needs. However, more remains to be done. While I strongly believe this bill needs to provide for the level of border patrol agents and detention beds as we authorized in the Intelligence Reform Act just 7 months ago, our amendments on these critical needs were unsuccessful. Another area of concern is the committee's decision to not fund the President's request for accelerated deployment of the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, US VISIT, Program, which was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Although US VISIT has much room for improvement, funding to expedite the full implementation of the program will be essential to our ability to adequately monitor the flow of individuals into and out of our country. I hope that this issue will be carefully reconsidered as this measure continues through the legislative process. As encouraged as I am to see additional resources directed to the border, enforcement alone will never fully secure our border. Over the last 12 years, the Federal Government has tripled spending on technology and infrastructure to secure the border and tripled the number of border patrol personnel. Yet during that same time, illegal immigration is estimated to have doubled. The lesson here is important: as long as there is a need for workers in this country that goes unmet by the domestic workforce, and as long as there are workers in other countries willing to risk their lives for the opportunity to take those jobs, they will find a way in. The simple fact is this: our Nation's borders are extremely porous. For the last several years the volatile conditions at our Nation's southwestern border have grown unsustainable. The cost of our broken immigration system is increasingly borne by local communities and State governments through uncompensated health care, unreimbursed law enforcement costs, environmental degradation, and an increased sense of lawlessness. As these conditions have worsened, several Members of this body, including myself, have put forth proposals to reform our Nation's immigration laws and improve security along the border and in the interior. Immigration reform is one of the most critical issues facing our Nation today, and I hope the Senate will soon turn to this issue. Funding for additional manpower and technology improvements must continue, but our borders will never be fully secure without comprehensive immigration reform. I support provisions in the bill and accompanying report which encourage the Department, specifically the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and ICE, to invest in improved technology. The report finds that the Department, ``should not be operating on stovepipped, disconnected, inherited information technology systems,'' but rather the Department should be equipped with the best technology systems available in order to reduce reliance on personnel and improve security. In particular, I am encouraged to see funding for the deployment of new equipment and technology to the border, including to Arizona, which in recent years has become a leading gateway for illegal immigration. Additionally, I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has encouraged the TSA to consistently implement a risk management approach to decisionmaking to prioritize security improvements as recommended by the General Accountability Office earlier this year. The GAO report stated that ``TSA has not consistently implemented a risk management approach or conducted the systematic analysis needed to inform its decision-making processes and to prioritize security improvements . . . a risk management approach can help inform decision makers in allocating finite resources to the areas of greatest need.'' Although I find a great deal to support in this bill, I would be remiss if I did not point out the serious unrequested spending and the few earmarks contained in this bill and the report. There is over $2 billion in unauthorized and unrequested spending in the bill and the report. Examples include: $47 million above the President's request for the acquisition and maintenance of facilities for the Federal law enforcement and training centers; $68 million for two maritime patrol aircraft under the Coast Guard's integrated deepwater system; $65 million to fund the Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act; and $59 million for critical infrastructure outreach and partnerships. Since such spending was not requested or isn't authorized, I have no way of knowing if such expenditures are needed. Needless expenditures are unacceptable, particularly while our country is running a deficit of $368 billion this year and a 10-year projected deficit of $1.35 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. When are we going to tighten the belt? While I concede that it is very difficult to reduce spending while attempting to protect the Nation's homeland, I can only hope that Congress's belt tightens elsewhere. Examples of earmarks and directive language include: language limiting overtime pay to $35,000 for Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, $55 million for the completion of the Tucson tactical infrastructure around the border and $15 million for the Coast Guard's bridge alteration program. Although many of these are important programs and worthy of funding, they were not specifically authorized by Congress and not requested by the President, and they should be. Lastly, I am also disappointed that the bill once again this year contains a Departmentwide ``Buy America'' requirement, and specific language directing the Secret Service to purchase American-made motorcycles. I firmly object to all ``Buy America'' restrictions, as they represent gross examples of protectionist trade policy. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose such policies because free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations, which then improves the security of our Nation. Furthermore, as a fiscal conservative, I want to ensure our Government gets the best deal for taxpayers and with a ``Buy American'' restriction that cannot be guaranteed. Such provisions cost the Department of Defense over $5.5 billion each year and I am fearful that we will see the same unnecessary expense arise at the Department of Homeland Security, a new agency. Once again, I thank the appropriators for their diligence in passing a relatively clean Homeland Security appropriations bill devoid of numerous earmarks. While much work remains to be done to secure our homeland, including comprehensive immigration reform and further action on 9/11 Commission recommendations, specifically more spectrum for first responders, we can take another important step by passing this legislation and providing the Department with adequate resources to protect our Nation's air space, borders, ports of entry, and travel infrastructure. amendment no. 1161

Mr. McCAIN. I have to see the amendment. I object. Mr. President, may I be recognized?

Mr. McCAIN. I am looking at them now. I do not object to 1110 now that I have seen it.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask my colleagues to approve this much needed legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. I haven't seen the other two.

Mr. McCAIN. I tell my colleagues we are about to have final passage, and they are trying to run several amendments through I have haven't seen. I object to it. I would like to see the amendments. I think I have that right as a Member of this body. So I object to any amendment that I have not seen.