John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am not sure this amendment will solve that problem, but I do believe a clear case is made for more detention beds. The underlying bill adds 2,240 new detention beds for fiscal year 2006. The amendment I am offering today further increases the number of detention beds by 5,760 beds, bringing the number of new beds to the level we authorized 7 months ago in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Lest there be any mistake made about me authorizing on an appropriations bill, this is authorized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, as is the previous amendment. I look forward to working with the managers of the bill on both of these amendments. I am grateful the first amendment I proposed has been agreed to. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the situation on our borders, as I have said, has reached a critical juncture. I have given the statistics. The Border Patrol releases more than 90 percent of the people they catch. I want to repeat that. The Border Patrol releases through voluntary repatriation more than 90 percent of the people they catch because the system is overwhelmed. That probably sounds unbelievable to most Americans. The unfortunate reality is that the Border Patrol simply cannot take into custody the vast number of people that are apprehended. Because of this, they must prioritize. Due to space limitations, our Federal agents rightly give a higher priority to aliens who represent potential criminal threats. Mexican nationals who are apprehended are usually returned to Mexican Government officials, voluntarily taken back across the border, and, in the case of a recent pilot program, repatriated to the interior of Mexico with the hope they are less likely to risk crossing again. However, foreign nationals from other countries often get off much easier. Because of the lack of detention space, the fact that their home countries are farther away, and limitations in our immigration laws, nationals from Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil, and a number of other countries are frequently apprehended by Federal officials, given a court summons to report to deportation proceedings, and released. Mr. President, let me tell you that again. They are apprehended, they find out they are from Brazil, they say, OK, show up in court, show up in court inside the United States, and then they are released. How many of those do you think we ever see again? The reality has become demoralizing to the men and women serving in the Border Patrol. Word about this loophole has quickly traveled back to Central and South American countries. Summonses to report to deportation proceedings are frequently called ``permisos'' or permission slips. Smugglers now take migrants as far as they can and tell them to approach the first Border Patrol agent they see and turn themselves in. After migrants obtain their permiso, they are then free to continue their journey to Chicago, New York, or wherever there is a job or a family member awaiting them. One result of this loophole has been a dramatic increase in the number of Brazilians crossing the border illegally. Fox News channel, Monday, July 11, 2005. ``Other Than Mexicans? Welcome to America.'' Los Angeles.--For many people around the world, the U.S.- Mexico border is a doorway to opportunity--one that's unlocked and wide open. Brazilians, Chinese, Pakistanis and many others are joining the tide of Mexicans who sneak across every day. ``OTMs include people from all over the world--South America, the Middle East, the Caribbean,'' explained former Immigration and Naturalization Service Special Agent Michael W. Cutler, currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. ``Anyone other than Mexican is an OTM.'' In 2001 5,251 ``OTMs'' were caught crossing over from Mexico. Last year the number was more than 35,000. In the first eight months of this fiscal year, it's up to 70,000 already--230 people a day--and they're only the ones getting caught. ``The vulnerability of a porous border is a security problem, and we always have to be concerned the real bad guys will exploit these vulnerabilities,'' said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. Critics are concerned at the way OTMs are handled. Mexicans are processed and sent back across the border within a few hours but Mexico won't allow the United States to send them citizens from other countries--and under U.S. law they're entitled to a deportation hearing. Because the immigration service lacks prison beds to hold them, the vast majority of OTMs are released from custody and asked to voluntarily return for their court date--which the majority of them obviously do not do. ``They are given a piece of paper called a notice to appear, which administratively starts the ball rolling for a deportation hearing,'' said Cutler. ``Not surprisingly, fewer than 15 percent show up. ``Our bureaucracy is not up to the challenge of protecting this country, our Congress is not dealing with the reality in a 21st Century way, our immigration laws are terribly out of place,'' commented Sharry. So what's the answer? While some say more legal immigration is needed, others want the borders effectively closed. Both sides seem to agree that giving illegal immigrants a free pass is no solution at all. I read from another article, ``Loophole to America'': In the silvery-blue light of dusk, 20 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 and collected their passports late last month. What happened next explains the odd reversal. The group was detained overnight and given a court summons that allowed them to stay in the United States pending an immigration hearing. Then a Border Patrol agent drove them to the McAllen bus station, where they continued their journey into America. The formal term for the court summons is a ``notice to appear.'' Border Patrol agents have another name for it. They call it a ``notice to disappear.'' Of the 8,908 notices to appear that the immigration court in nearby Harlingen issued last year to non-Mexicans, 8,767 failed to show up for their hearings, according to statistics compiled by the Justice Department's Executive Office of Immigration Review. That is a no-show rate of 98 percent. The problem is that U.S. immigration authorities are short on detention space. They can send Mexicans back across the border within hours. But international law prohibits them from sending non-Mexicans to Mexico. Instead, they must arrange travel documents and flights directly to the immigrant's country of origin. The process, which the U.S. government pays for, takes weeks or even months. The result is an unintended avenue of entry for a rapidly growing class of illegal immigrants from Central and South America who now see the Border Patrol more as a welcome wagon than a barrier. It is one example of the tears in the ``seamless web of enforcement'' that immigration authorities vowed to establish along the U.S.-Mexico border during the 1990s, when they spent billions of dollars on strategically placed lights, sensors, roads, fences and agents. It also helps explain why the nation's illegal immigrant population has grown to record levels despite the buildup. The morning after Agent Balderas encountered the 20 Brazilians, another Border Patrol agent drove them to the McAllen bus station where they headed toward their destinations. They were armed with notices to appear that carried them safely past Border Patrol checkpoints. Two days later, Graice De Olveira-Silva and three companions from Brazil were working for her relatives' house- cleaning business in Atlanta. It is a world turned upside down for the Border Patrol, especially here in South Texas. Back in 1985, things were so different that a woman was convicted on charges that she drove illegal immigrants from El Salvador around the Border Patrol and to the same McAllen bus station. Now smugglers operate with impunity. After their loads of immigrants splash ashore, the smugglers slip back across the river. As word of this border loophole filters back to Central and South America, the volume of people coming to exploit it is likely to grow, according to Border Patrol agents. A Guatemalan arrested late last month in the McAllen sector who gave his name as Hugo said that when word gets back home, ``Anyone who has a little money will be coming.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent both articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1150 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send three modifications of my amendments Nos. 1171, No. 1150, and No. 1151, to the desk and ask unanimous consent those modifications be in order.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have now three pending amendments that have been modified, is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, despite the worthy efforts that have been made to secure our homeland, much remains to be done. I, for one, do not believe we can ever expect to fully secure our Nation until we enact comprehensive immigration reform that includes strong and effective enforcement requirements. We cannot accomplish that in this pending bill, but in the meantime we can still take additional measures to better secure our border. I commend the chairman, subcommittee chairman, and the ranking members for putting forward an appropriations bill that includes a number of sound border security funding provisions. One area I would like to see strengthened, as is proposed by this amendment, is to ensure we are more fully monitoring the southwestern border where most of the illegal crossing and needless deaths occur annually. Let me cite a few of the more alarming statistics about what is going on in the southwestern border region. Over 300 people died in the desert last year trying to cross the border. About 200 of those deaths occurred in the Arizona desert. The Border Patrol is currently apprehending approximately 1,300 undocumented immigrants a day in Arizona. This number is expected to rise. An estimated 3,000 people enter the United States illegally from Mexico every single day. Last year, 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol and more than half of those were in the State of Arizona. The Border Patrol releases more than 90 percent of the people they catch through voluntary repatriation, because the system is simply overwhelmed. I want to repeat that, Mr. President. Anybody who has visited our border and seen those wonderful men and women who serve there in the Border Patrol and Immigration will agree they are simply overwhelmed. We have our work cut out for us. We need more manpower and better focused technology. This legislation provides some needed funding for both, but I hope by the time it passes the Senate that we redirect some of the $31.8 billion in this bill to allow us to fulfill a commitment we made just 7 months ago as part of the intelligence reform legislation. In that law we authorize for the coming year 2,000 more Border Patrol agents, twice as many as would be provided for in the underlying bill, and 8,000 detention beds, 5,790 more than provided for in the bill before us. I filed amendments to fulfill these authorized levels and would like to work with the bill managers to address these important security issues. Another area of particular concern along the southwestern border, particularly to Arizonans, since our State is now the leading gateway to illegal entry, is the Federal Government's use of technologies that are already available to strengthen our security efforts. Manpower alone is not the answer when we are dealing with a 6,000- mile border area. The February grounding of the unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, in southern Arizona sent the absolute wrong message to those seeking to illegally enter our country. They are a helpful and needed deterrent to illegal entry and have been very useful in helping to monitor and better secure our southern border. Halting this program even temporarily needlessly jeopardizes our citizens and Nation. The temperature today on the border between Arizona and Mexico is probably, in the middle of the day, 120 degrees. It is awfully hard on Border Patrol people, and there is no way we can patrol these hundreds of miles of border simply with ground vehicles. UAVs have proved extremely effective in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the world. Clearly it would have tremendous utility in monitoring what is happening along our borders, not only to prevent illegal crossings but also, once those crossings are made, to track down and arrest those who are doing so. And as is well known, not everyone who is crossing the border is simply coming for a job. We have significant drug trafficking, and the Director of the FBI has stated that we are apprehending more and more citizens of ``countries of interest'' that are crossing our borders as well. In our efforts to counter terrorism and promote national security, it is essential that we use all appropriate assets available to ensure the safety of our citizens and the security of our borders. As we learned through extensive military operations, UAVs have proven to be a highly effective aerial surveillance system that can be used as a force multiplier in coordination with other air and ground surveillance technologies. Of course, we should work to ensure the most effective UAV technologies are employed over the border, but it is important that some form of UAV be deployed in the short term to augment ongoing enforcement efforts. Grounding the UAVs also creates a perception in an already volatile border region that the Federal Government is abandoning its responsibilities. We are now into our fifth month with grounded UAVs at the southern border, and I find this inexcusable and unacceptable. A UAV program not only helps to deter illegal immigrants but also maximizes the effectiveness of our law enforcement agents on the ground. I commend the bill managers for recognizing the need for UAVs and hope they can agree to support my amendment that will make clear to DHS that the funding provided in this bill is not to support grounded technologies but, rather, is provided to support a robust UAV program that best meets the area's security risks while recognizing the need for constant surveillance along the southwestern border. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure UAV surveillance at the Nation's borders and maximize our law enforcement efforts. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the managers of the bill would agree to this amendment by voice vote at the appropriate time, but I would clearly await the presence of the managers before proceeding. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside pending legislation and take up amendment 1151 as modified, UAVs at the southwestern border.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe they are not pending.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes. That is fine. The modifications to the filed amendments have been agreed to. I would like to make a statement about rail security legislation and then, after conversations with Senator Gregg, bring up an amendment on UAVs, which is filed, and then have two additional amendments pending, because I am afraid I may need up-or-down votes. I am pleased the Senate continues to make progress on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. It is important that we adequately fund this Department and its essential programs which are critical to our Nation's efforts to secure our homeland as we fight the war on terrorism. In addition to this funding measure, legislation authorizing security efforts is equally important. I am particularly concerned about an authorizing bill the Senate passed by unanimous consent in the 108th Congress, but which has not yet been enacted. Earlier this week I introduced the Rail Security Act of 2005, legislation that is nearly identical to the rail security bill that passed the Senate last year, as I say, unanimously. I sincerely hope we once again pass this important legislation and, given current events, the sooner we act, the better. Rail security must be made a top priority in this Congress. I would like to mention the Rail Security Act we passed in the 108th Congress was the product of numerous hearings in the Commerce Committee, with expert witnesses and with administration support. So that is why I believe it should have relatively little controversy associated with it. We are all deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life caused by the terrorist attacks in London last week. Those instances are a painful reminder of the cruel nature of our enemies in this war and of what we must do to fight and win against those who wish to eradicate our way of life. I have said on many occasions that we cannot just play defense in this war, that instead we must take the fight to the enemy. Still, we must do what is possible to protect Americans at home. The London bombings and the attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system last year demonstrate all too vividly the continuing need for this legislation. We have taken considerable action to address aviation security and devoted significant resources to that mode. I think all would agree aviation is safer now than before 9/11. However, since the terrorist attacks nearly 4 years ago, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security. Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks, this despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has identified as potential terrorist targets the freight and rail passenger networks, which are critical to the Nation's transportation system and national defense. The 9/11 Commission, in its report on the facts and circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks, called for improved security in all modes of transportation, noting that ``terrorists may turn their attention to other modes.'' The Rail Security Act would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion for rail security. More than half of this funding would be authorized to complete tunnel safety and security improvements at New York's Penn Station, which is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and inner city passengers each workday. The legislation would also establish a grant program authorized at $350 million to encourage security enhancements by the freight railroads, Amtrak shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with security responsibility for passenger stations not owned by Amtrak. Further, DHS would be required to complete a vulnerability assessment of the rail network to terrorist attack, and make recommendations to Congress for addressing security weaknesses. Importantly, to protect the taxpayers' interests, all Amtrak authorizations would be managed by the Department of Transportation through formal grant agreements. We face a dedicated, focused, intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find our weaknesses and move against them. We have seen the vulnerability of rail to terrorism in other countries and the devastating consequences of such an attack. It is essential we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack. Also, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, be listed as a cosponsor of the Rail Security Act.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his cosponsorship of this legislation, particularly given that Mr. Biden travels daily on the rails, back and forth to his home in Delaware. I trust the Senate will move quickly to once again pass this essential legislation. We owe at least that much to the American people as we continue our struggle against an enemy that wants nothing less than to destroy everything we stand for and believe in. Amendment No. 1151, As Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, despite worthy efforts to secure our homeland, much remains to be done, and I do not believe we can expect to secure fully our Nation until we enact comprehensive immigration reform that includes strong and effective enforcement requirements. I commend the chairman and subcommittee chairman and ranking members for putting forward an appropriations bill that includes a number of important border security funding provisions. Clearly, they do not have an easy job. And I know they have worked to fund critical homeland security needs. One area that I strongly believe should be strengthened, however, concerns the number of Border Patrol agents as they play one of the most critical roles in securing our homeland. To help my colleagues to understand the great need for more manpower, let me cite just a few of the more alarming statistics about what is going on in the southwestern border region. Over 300 people died last year; an estimated 3,000 people enter the United States from Mexico every day. A few weeks ago, 79 people were found in a Phoenix alley crammed into a commercial horse trailer. The heat was over 100 degrees, and they had been there for several days. Of the 79, 11 were children, including a 4-month-old baby. At the beginning of the summer, when the temperature in the desert rose unexpectedly, 12 people died crossing into Arizona in 1 weekend. Mr. President, we have our work cut out for us. We need more manpower and better focused technology. This legislation provides some needed funding for both. But I hope that by the time it passes the Senate, we redirect some of the $31.8 billion in this bill to allow us to fulfill a commitment we made just 7 months ago as part of the intelligence reform legislation. Mr. President, a dangerous state of lawlessness exists along the southwestern border, and it has become increasingly volatile. The Federal Government's inability to stem the illegal traffic flowing across the border has shifted substantial financial and social burdens to residents of the border region. Recent action by minutemen along the Arizona border provided the Nation with an image of the frustration felt by many Americans. Border States are suffering from the immediate and downstream problems associated with illegal immigration. Our hospitals are burdened with enormous uncompensated costs, and so are our State and local law enforcement agencies. We simply need more manpower to protect the border in the near term. While I strongly believe that once we fix our broken immigration system, we will see the day that some of our border resources can be shifted to other priorities, until then Congress must have the will to take the action needed to reform our broken immigration system. We need to have a robust Border Patrol force hired, trained, and on the job. While providing solid resources to state and local officials to ensure the readiness of our first responders is imperative, the men and women serving in the Border Patrol are literally on the front lines in the fight to keep the terrorists out of our country. CIA Director Muller has said that more and more people from ``countries of interest'' are looking at our southwest border as a possible point of entry into the United States. Why shouldn't they. Hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of migrants who enter the United States illegally each year to work represent the perfect cover for potential terrorists. Of course, if others have offsets to suggest, that would be preferable. I am open to any and all options that will enable us to meet the full level of Border Patrol agents so desperately needed on the front lines. Mr. President, I am aware that the managers are not in agreement with this amendment, and that is why I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1171 as modified.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are all deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life caused by the terrorist attacks in London last week. Those incidents are a painful reminder of the cruel nature of our enemies in this war, and of what we must do to fight and win against those who wish to eradicate our way of life. I have said on many occasions that we cannot just play defense in this war, that instead we must take the fight to the enemy. Still, we must do what is possible to protect Americans at home. To that end, the Senate passed by unanimous consent last year the Rail Security Act of 2004, rail security legislation that, unfortunately, was not approved by the House of Representatives. The London bombings and the attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system last year demonstrate all too vividly the continuing need for this legislation. Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Though we have increased dramatically our security capabilities since 9/11, we have more to do. For example, since 9/11, only modest resources have been dedicated to rail security, and efforts to address rail security remain fragmented despite the constant and tragic reminders abroad that we are in desperate need of deliberate action. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has not yet completed a vulnerability assessment for the rail system, nor is there an integrated security plan that reflects the unique characteristics of passenger and freight rail operations. The legislation I am introducing today, which is nearly identical to the Rail Security Act of 2004, would authorize resources to ensure rail transportation security receives a high priority in our efforts to secure our country from terrorism. The legislation directs DHS to complete a vulnerability assessment for the rail system and make recommendations for addressing security weaknesses within 180 days of enactment. It would also authorize funding to address long-standing fire and life-safety needs for several tunnels along the Northeast Corridor, and would authorize appropriations to meet immediate security needs for intercity and freight rail transportation. Further, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office, the bill would require DHS to sign a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Transportation to add clarity to each department's roles and responsibilities with respect to rail security. It is my expectation that this memorandum would supplement and add detail to the memorandum of understanding between the two departments signed on September 28, 2004. The freight railroads, individual commuter authorities, and Amtrak have, on their own initiative, completed risk assessments and taken steps to safeguard passengers, facilities, and cargo. These efforts, accomplished at a very small cost to the Federal Government, have helped make our rail system safer. The legislation introduced today will augment these efforts and bring these individual initiatives together in a coordinated rail security program. I trust that the Senate will move quickly to once again pass this essential legislation. We owe at least that much to the American people as we continue our struggle against an enemy that wants nothing less than to destroy everything we stand for and believe in. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a much needed amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Byron Dorgan, and my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl as original cosponsors of this bill. This bill expands the existing Federal investigative authority by authorizing other Federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA Office of Law Enforcement, in addition to the FBI, to investigate cases of misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts. This bill is substantially the same as Section 111 of the Native American Omnibus Act, S. 536, which passed out of the Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year. This bill also addresses concerns that were raised by the administration. A major source of tribal and individual Indian income is derived from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts. Yet, today, millions of dollars are diverted each year from these original artists and Indian tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. However, it is my understanding that few, if any, criminal prosecutions have been brought in Federal court for such violations. It is understandable that enforcing the criminal law that prohibits the sale of Indian arts and crafts misrepresented as an Indian product is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes in Indian country. Therefore, expanding the investigative authority to include other Federal agencies is intended to promote the active investigation of alleged misconduct. It is my hope that with this much needed change will deter those who dare to violate the act. I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that authorizes the Secretary or Homeland Security to establish a pilot program to enhance an Indian tribe's response to border activity. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Byron Dorgan, and my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, as original cosponsors of this bill. This bill establishes a pilot program to enhance tribal first responder capabilities, provide assistance for surveillance technologies and communication capabilities and to facilitate coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal governments along the international border. The criteria for participation in the pilot program is to be prescribed by the Secretary taking into consideration the tribes' proximity to the border and the extent to which border crossing activity impacts existing tribal resources. This bill is substantially similar to Section 132 of S. 536, the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005, which was unanimously passed out of the Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year. It has been modified to address several concerns including to clarify that it does not alter the original jurisdiction or traditional role of the Federal agencies responding to border crimes or any Indian tribe. Several Indian tribes inhabit land on or easily accessible to the United States and Canada and Mexico. This bill recognizes that these tribes are exceptionally vulnerable to border crimes. And, although enforcement of our immigration laws and border security is a Federal responsibility, these tribes continue to bear extraordinary costs in responding to border crimes and almost always divert funds intended for local police and welfare services to do so. For example, a tribal police officer may see suspicious drug or immigrant smuggling activity occurring within the Indian tribes boundaries or come upon an accident scene or death involving illegal immigrants or drug smugglers. The tribal officer is required to notify Federal officials and render aid to the injured. The Federal official may be hours away and the tribal police are usually asked to detain the suspects or possibly transport them to medical aid. Meanwhile, the tribal police agency is unable to respond to community calls for service. Additionally, tribal police are intimately familiar with their territory and are able to provide Federal agencies with information that is useful in fulfilling their responsibilities. I recognize that Federal and State agencies play the primary role in these efforts. However, in specific areas of this Nation, tribal government police, fire and emergency services often provide the first and often only response because of their access to the border. A tribe's proximity to the border and its responsibility for public safety and welfare of their members requires that they respond. Simply put, Indian tribes situated close to the international border are vulnerable and greatly impacted and we must acknowledge their daily role in responding to border crimes. This bill gives them added tools to do so. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a much needed amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Byron Dorgan, and my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl as original cosponsors of this bill. This bill expands the existing Federal investigative authority by authorizing other Federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA Office of Law Enforcement, in addition to the FBI, to investigate cases of misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts. This bill is substantially the same as Section 111 of the Native American Omnibus Act, S. 536, which passed out of the Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year. This bill also addresses concerns that were raised by the administration. A major source of tribal and individual Indian income is derived from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts. Yet, today, millions of dollars are diverted each year from these original artists and Indian tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. However, it is my understanding that few, if any, criminal prosecutions have been brought in Federal court for such violations. It is understandable that enforcing the criminal law that prohibits the sale of Indian arts and crafts misrepresented as an Indian product is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes in Indian country. Therefore, expanding the investigative authority to include other Federal agencies is intended to promote the active investigation of alleged misconduct. It is my hope that with this much needed change will deter those who dare to violate the act. I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are all deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life caused by the terrorist attacks in London last week. Those incidents are a painful reminder of the cruel nature of our enemies in this war, and of what we must do to fight and win against those who wish to eradicate our way of life. I have said on many occasions that we cannot just play defense in this war, that instead we must take the fight to the enemy. Still, we must do what is possible to protect Americans at home. To that end, the Senate passed by unanimous consent last year the Rail Security Act of 2004, rail security legislation that, unfortunately, was not approved by the House of Representatives. The London bombings and the attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system last year demonstrate all too vividly the continuing need for this legislation. Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Though we have increased dramatically our security capabilities since 9/11, we have more to do. For example, since 9/11, only modest resources have been dedicated to rail security, and efforts to address rail security remain fragmented despite the constant and tragic reminders abroad that we are in desperate need of deliberate action. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has not yet completed a vulnerability assessment for the rail system, nor is there an integrated security plan that reflects the unique characteristics of passenger and freight rail operations. The legislation I am introducing today, which is nearly identical to the Rail Security Act of 2004, would authorize resources to ensure rail transportation security receives a high priority in our efforts to secure our country from terrorism. The legislation directs DHS to complete a vulnerability assessment for the rail system and make recommendations for addressing security weaknesses within 180 days of enactment. It would also authorize funding to address long-standing fire and life-safety needs for several tunnels along the Northeast Corridor, and would authorize appropriations to meet immediate security needs for intercity and freight rail transportation. Further, as recommended by the Government Accountability Office, the bill would require DHS to sign a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Transportation to add clarity to each department's roles and responsibilities with respect to rail security. It is my expectation that this memorandum would supplement and add detail to the memorandum of understanding between the two departments signed on September 28, 2004. The freight railroads, individual commuter authorities, and Amtrak have, on their own initiative, completed risk assessments and taken steps to safeguard passengers, facilities, and cargo. These efforts, accomplished at a very small cost to the Federal Government, have helped make our rail system safer. The legislation introduced today will augment these efforts and bring these individual initiatives together in a coordinated rail security program. I trust that the Senate will move quickly to once again pass this essential legislation. We owe at least that much to the American people as we continue our struggle against an enemy that wants nothing less than to destroy everything we stand for and believe in. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that authorizes the Secretary or Homeland Security to establish a pilot program to enhance an Indian tribe's response to border activity. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Byron Dorgan, and my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, as original cosponsors of this bill. This bill establishes a pilot program to enhance tribal first responder capabilities, provide assistance for surveillance technologies and communication capabilities and to facilitate coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal governments along the international border. The criteria for participation in the pilot program is to be prescribed by the Secretary taking into consideration the tribes' proximity to the border and the extent to which border crossing activity impacts existing tribal resources. This bill is substantially similar to Section 132 of S. 536, the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005, which was unanimously passed out of the Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year. It has been modified to address several concerns including to clarify that it does not alter the original jurisdiction or traditional role of the Federal agencies responding to border crimes or any Indian tribe. Several Indian tribes inhabit land on or easily accessible to the United States and Canada and Mexico. This bill recognizes that these tribes are exceptionally vulnerable to border crimes. And, although enforcement of our immigration laws and border security is a Federal responsibility, these tribes continue to bear extraordinary costs in responding to border crimes and almost always divert funds intended for local police and welfare services to do so. For example, a tribal police officer may see suspicious drug or immigrant smuggling activity occurring within the Indian tribes boundaries or come upon an accident scene or death involving illegal immigrants or drug smugglers. The tribal officer is required to notify Federal officials and render aid to the injured. The Federal official may be hours away and the tribal police are usually asked to detain the suspects or possibly transport them to medical aid. Meanwhile, the tribal police agency is unable to respond to community calls for service. Additionally, tribal police are intimately familiar with their territory and are able to provide Federal agencies with information that is useful in fulfilling their responsibilities. I recognize that Federal and State agencies play the primary role in these efforts. However, in specific areas of this Nation, tribal government police, fire and emergency services often provide the first and often only response because of their access to the border. A tribe's proximity to the border and its responsibility for public safety and welfare of their members requires that they respond. Simply put, Indian tribes situated close to the international border are vulnerable and greatly impacted and we must acknowledge their daily role in responding to border crimes. This bill gives them added tools to do so. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we have learned that one of our Nation's finest jurists will step down from our highest court. Despite her departure from the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will leave a lasting mark on American jurisprudence characterized by fairness, balance, and integrity. Justice O'Connor's career and service to our Nation have been truly remarkable. This country will miss her presence on the Supreme Court dearly. Some have said that no other individual in our Nation's history has come to the Supreme Court under greater expectations. Not only did Justice O'Connor meet these expectations, she far exceeded them. When President Reagan nominated and the Senate unanimously confirmed Justice O'Connnor in 1981, she became the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court and, over time, she grew to be one of the crucial swing votes on the court--her decisions driven both by her conservative sensibilities and also by her practical nature. Justice O'Connor grew up on the Lazy-B Cattle Ranch in southeastern Arizona. She learned to drive at age 7 and could fire rifles and ride horses by the time she turned 8. Perhaps it was her Arizona roots that fueled both her pragmatism and her desire to succeed. Mr. President, after high school, Justice O'Connor attended Stanford University where she majored in economics and graduated with high honors. A legal dispute over her family's ranch, however, inspired her interest in law and her decision to enroll at Stanford Law School. Justice O'Connor completed law school in only two years, but she still managed to serve on the Stanford Law Review and receive highest honors. O'Connor graduated third out of a class of 102. First in the class was fellow Arizonan William H. Rehnquist. I suggest that maybe we should turn to Arizona once again for a Supreme Court nominee, considering the track records of Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist. In law school, Justice O'Connor also met her future husband, John Jay O'Connor, a fine man and husband. Mr. President, Justice O'Connor faced a difficult job market after leaving Stanford. No law firm in California wanted to hire her and only one offered her a position as a legal secretary. Later, in Arizona, she again found it difficult to obtain a position with any law firm, so she started her own firm. It is truly remarkable to realize just how far Justice O'Connor has risen during her life despite the adversity she has faced. After she gave birth to her second son, Justice O'Connor withdrew from her professional life to care for her children. Nevertheless, she became involved in many volunteer activities during this time. She also began an involvement with the Arizona Republican Party. After five years as a full-time mother, Justice O'Connor returned to work as an assistant State Attorney General in Arizona. Arizona Governor Jack Williams later appointed her to occupy a vacant seat in the Arizona Senate. O'Connor successfully defended her Senate position for two more terms and eventually became the majority leader. By rising to the position of majority leader, Justice O'Connor achieved another first for American women. In 1974, Justice O'Connor ran and won a judgeship on the Maricopa County Superior Court, which resulted in her service in all three branches of Arizona government. A year later, she was nominated to serve on to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Almost two years after that, President Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court to replace the retiring Justice Potter Stewart. The Senate rightly confirmed O'Connor's nomination unanimously and the Court soon abandoned its use of ``Mr. Justice'' as the form of address. Justice O'Connor herself described the significance of her nomination in the following way. She said, ``A woman had never held a position at that level of our government. And it was a signal that it was all right that women could be in such positions. That they could do well in such positions.'' Mr. President, Justice O'Connor brought to her position on the Supreme Court her remarkable life history characterized by independence, perseverance, and achievement. Early in her tenure on the Court, observers identified her as part of the Court's conservative faction. The public often associated her with Justice Rehnquist because of their shared roots and values. Over time, though, Justice O'Connor combined her conservative sensibilities with a desire to find pragmatic solutions based on sound legal interpretation. She approached each case thoughtfully. It will be difficult to fill the void that Justice O'Connor's resignation has created, nor can anyone assume a similar place in American history. There can be only one first, and Sandra Day O'Connor was it. Mr. President, very rarely do I presume to speak on behalf of all of the citizens of my State of Arizona. But I know, with confidence, that I do so now when from the bottom of our hearts we thank Justice O'Connor for her magnificent service to her State and to her Nation. She and her magnificent husband John will be in our thoughts and prayers as they enter the struggle ahead. We are confident that with her traditional courage, she will face this new challenge and emerge victorious. We thank her for her service. We thank her for her family. We are, most of all, confident that Americans and Arizonans will remember her with great pride. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senator from Nevada, there is a large stack of amendments my staff has just been handed. Here we are at 10:15 at night, and we have never laid eyes on them before. I say again to my colleagues, plan on rollcall votes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Montana. The Senator from North Dakota just stated, Who pays? I wonder, who pays when my wife goes to the supermarket and pays 13 cents more for a pound of sugar than she does and would if we had sugar from these countries able to come into this country? I am not in the business of producing or selling sugar, nor are many American families. But there are a whole lot of American families who are in the business of buying products that have sugar in them. They pay an exorbitantly higher price because of the protectionism that is practiced for the sugar industry. Since when can't the United States compete on a level playing field? The opposition to this is clearly one that is protectionist in nature--for an industry that, in my view, should be able to compete with foreign producers. That is not what this debate really should be all about. The stakes could hardly be higher--whether we import or export sugar, whether the Central American Free Trade Agreement passes has implications, whether the American farm exports will enter the Dominican Republic duty free, or whether Guatemala will be able to increase its textile protection. By the way, I say to the Presiding Officer, if Guatemala is unable to export its textiles into the United States, I don't believe it will be the United States that would be producing textiles; I believe it will be the Chinese and others. I don't want to be hyperbolic, but I believe the vote we will soon take on CAFTA is one of the most important that will be cast in the Senate this year. It is important because at stake is the future of Central America in its economic and political dimensions and, hence, its security dimensions. It is important because it will determine whether the free-trade agenda as laid out by President Bush proceeds toward a successful Doha round of global trade talks or whether the effort will be stopped in its tracks. It is important because it will help determine whether the invigorating effects of free trade are experienced in our country anew or whether the protectionists are able to erect their walls around us. It is important because it will show whether a trade policy in America is determined by sugar growers, unions, and other special interests or whether it is determined by leaders who place at the forefront the interests of our Nation as a whole. A few years ago, we concluded a free-trade agreement with Chile. There are certain facts that are available already. There were the usual arguments against it from the protectionists. In 2004, the first year the agreement was effective, two-way trade increased by 33 percent. In the first 4 months of this year, it grew even faster--45 percent. Exports from the United States to Chile have risen at still higher rates--nearly 35 percent in 2004 and almost 63 percent in the first quarter of this year. Preliminary numbers suggest that in 2005, U.S. exports to Chile may nearly double those recorded in 2003. That is what free trade is all about. That is based on the firm conviction that most of us have that American products can compete with any in the world. Now, some can't. And that is terrible, and that is why we have trade adjustment assistance. When industries in the United States are directly affected by importation of products from other countries as a result of trade agreements, we have trade adjustment assistance to provide workers retraining to upgrade their ability to find other employment. We need to do more in that area. But to somehow reject the benefits of free trade because of the damage it may do--and I emphasize ``may''--to certain industries is very shortsighted. We see in Latin America today a growing skepticism about democracy-- equated in the minds of many with austerity programs and lack of improvement in the standard of living. Disturbing polls suggest that discontent with democracy is on the rise and that large percentages would prefer a strong man who could improve living standards to a democratically elected leader who could not. CAFTA has the potential to illustrate the tangible benefits that come from democracy--free market economics and partnership with the United States. Let me give one concrete example. The apparel industry is critical in the regional economy, accounting for $9 billion in exports each year. CAFTA will lift duty on most apparel and nonapparel goods, immediately bolstering an economic sector that represents tens of thousands of jobs in the region. The overall effect of this and other benefits would be to help lock in Central America's political and economic gains. Let's consider what happens if CAFTA fails. Rejecting the pact would be seen by our Central American partners as American disengagement from a region important to our security. Thousands of apparel production jobs would likely be lost as they move production facilities from Central America to China, further exacerbating illegal immigration to the United States. It would signal to the people of Central America that the support of the United States for their freedom and prosperity is more rhetorical than real--even in a win-win situation for both sides. It would have a devastating effect on our effort to lower trade barriers with other partners around the world and to push forward the Doha round of multilateral talks and put another notch in the post of the special interests as they despoil the public good for their private gain. We need CAFTA. It is important to our economy. But it is also vital to our political security and humanitarian interests in Central America. The former President of Costa Rica, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Oscar Arias, speaking of CAFTA, said it represents ``an unparalleled opportunity to transform Central America into a dynamic economy, deeply integrated with worldwide flows of trade and technology. We ask not for charity, but enlightened self-interest from our northern neighbor.'' I am concerned about the state of democracy in Central America. I am disturbed that in Nicaragua there is every likelihood we may see Daniel Ortega as the next President of that country. I am disturbed about the failing economy and corruption that exists in El Salvador. I am concerned about the continuing stagnation of the economies of Guatemala and Honduras. Mr. President, if the countries of Central America continue to fail economically, it will give rise to a situation that I do not want to revisit. When I first came to the Senate, one of the overriding and compelling challenges we faced was the rise of communism in Central America, the influence of Castro in countries such as Nicaragua, the Sandinistas in power, the effect it had on neighboring countries such as Honduras and El Salvador where there was an ongoing revolution. Billions of dollars of American taxpayers' dollars were poured into the region in aiding El Salvador in combating others in the region. One of the most emotional and unpleasant debates I have ever engaged in on the floor of this Senate had to do with aid to the Contras. I do not want to revisit those days of the 1980s. I do not want to go back to a region that may be beset by corruption, anarchy, and possible insurgencies. We have another individual on the rise in our hemisphere, and his name is Chavez from Venezuela. He espouses policies and programs that I believe are not in the best interests of the people of Venezuela. And he also, I believe, is having an influence in the region. If there is anything we need today, it is strong, viable economies in Central America, so they can progress, so they can be strong, and they can again be allies of the United States of America, not in a military fashion but in their advocacy for free and open societies, democracies, and places where people can raise their families in a situation of security and peace. I would like to mention again, if there is one lesson we have learned in the challenge of illegal immigration in this country, it is that if people cannot feed themselves and their families where they are, they will go to places where they think they can. If that means risking their lives crossing the Arizona-Sonora border, they will do so. Mr. President, I strongly urge--I strongly urge--my colleagues to not only understand the trade implications of this agreement but the political, social, as well as economic reasons for us to consider favorably this agreement. The stakes are very high. I believe, with the leadership of this President and the bipartisan support of this body, we will prevail. I thank my colleague from Montana for allowing me this time. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. McCAIN. I may ask for an additional 5.