Fair Currency Enforcement Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to encourage increased production of influenza vaccines in the United States. I am happy to honor my commitment to reintroduce the Flu Protection Act of 2005, along with Senator Bayh.

We dodged a bullet this year because we had a relatively mild flu season. Also, because the administration and public health officials did an excellent job of immediately addressing the vaccine shortage when it was announced in October. While this season's vaccine shortage didn't have as strong an impact as it might have, we should not go a day without looking for a path toward solving this problem so that we don't have the same issues in years to come. We may not always be so fortunate. Scientists believe that the return of an especially strong pandemic strain of flu is overdue. This legislation supports the administration's efforts to take steps to prepare for the imminent threat of avian flu.

The Bush administration has made progress on this issue, but Congress needs to address the underlying problems. The United States is disturbingly underprepared to deal with a massive outbreak or a sudden shortage of vaccine. We don't want to get caught short next year. We must aggressively encourage vaccine companies to come into this market and pass building incentives for existing companies.

I am encouraged that some sections of this legislation have been included in the majority's priority legislative package and look forward to working with other Members of Congress to ensure that the most comprehensive piece of legislation possible can be approved. We must move quickly to pass legislation that ensures sufficient flu vaccine supply, encourages an increase in production capacity, supports a flu vaccine awareness campaign, and prepares the United States to combat a pandemic or epidemic.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor at this moment to join my colleague Chuck Hagel in the introduction of legislation that he has put together out of a variety of avenues of interest and importance to deal with the issue of climate change, a issue in which he and I have been engaged for a good long while. I am not quite sure how many years ago it was that I, as the freshman chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, turned to Chuck to see if he could bring Senators together in a bipartisan way on what we believed at the moment--and we still believe today--was a critically important issue to be addressed.

Out of that effort grew the Hagel-Byrd resolution which passed this body by an overwhelming vote, and was a very clear message to America-- and to the world--on what we believed was necessary and important if we were to responsibly and effectively engage in the debate of climate change outside and well beyond the Kyoto protocol.

The legislation Senator Hagel brings to the floor today, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, is what I believe is a needed and necessary next step to work cooperatively with this administration and with countries around the world to begin to recognize all that is the makeup of this issue.

Our policy must recognize the legitimate needs of our bilateral trading partners to use their resources to meet the needs of their people. Yet, at the same time, the initial debate basically suggested that if in fact human involvement in the climate of the world was changing the climate of the world, the only way you could save the climate was to turn the lights out. It did not address the human need. It did not address the economic growth that was critically necessary at that time. That is why our country pushed back and said no, we would not ratify Kyoto; that we would go much further than that in bringing about the changes that were necessary and that this administration engaged in.

This legislation does a great deal more toward recognizing the need for bringing resources together.

Senator Hagel has made clear the other important things this legislation will do. Above all, this legislation is a true acknowledgment that climate variability and change is a top priority as an issue for the United States--and for all nations--to be involved in.

There can be an honest debate about whether the United States should do more or whether too much reliance is being placed on voluntary initiatives, but to claim that the United States is not acting seriously reflects, at best, a lack of knowledge or, at worst, political posturing.

An objective review of Government and private sector programs to reduce increases in greenhouse gas now and in the future would have to conclude that the United States is doing at least as much, if not more, than countries that are part of the Kyoto Protocol which will go into effect tomorrow. The best evidence of this is our domestic rate of improvement in greenhouse gas intensity relative to the improvements other countries are making.

The term I just used, ``greenhouse gas intensity,'' is defined in legislation as the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output. This is a far wiser measure of progress because it complements, rather than conflicts with, a nation's goal of growing its economy and meeting the needs and aspirations of its people.

Too much attention is being paid to the mandatory nature of Kyoto. Too little results are being achieved. It is very interesting to note that most of the countries that ratified Kyoto will not meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets by the deadlines required by Kyoto. Indeed, when I and Senator Craig Thomas and Congressman Joe Barton were in Buenos Aires at the COP-10 conference in December, many nations were quietly acknowledging that they could not get to where they promised they would get, and, in fact, some have even suggested that by 2012 they would find it incumbent upon themselves and their nations to back out of Kyoto. However, all still recognize the importance of this issue, understanding it, and clearly defining it.

What Senator Hagel's legislation does is shape for us a variety of things that are already underway, while still allowing us clearly to define them and to say, both here at home with our domestic policy as well as internationally, that we mean what we say and we mean what we do.

The United States is currently spending in excess of $5 billion annually in scientific and technological initiatives. When we were in Buenos Aires, I was very proud to stand before my colleagues from around the world and before nongovernmental organizational groups and state that the United States is spending more on this issue, in both advances in science and technological change, than the rest of the world combined times two. Then I reminded them that all that we do, they could have also: that our technology would be in the world, that our science would be available to them, and that to work our way out of or to change the character of our economies without damaging those economies would in large part be the responsibility of new technologies.

This legislation does not pick one technology over another or one energy source over another. That has always been the debate. Somehow we had to go around and selectively turn out the lights if we were going to change the climate around us. We knew that was not acceptable to the developing world and in large part that is why the developing world would not come along. How can you deny a country the right to use its resources for the economic, humanitarian, and health benefits of its people? You cannot do that. Nor should we be engaged in trying to do that.

What we can do as a developed and advanced Nation is offer up exactly what we are doing; offer up what the Hagel legislation brings together. That is all we are doing now, and advancing and incentivizing, through this legislation, countries to do more in the area of technology.

These programs are designed to advance our state of knowledge, accelerate the development and the deployment of energy technologies, aid developing countries in using energy more efficiently, and achieve an 18-percent reduction in energy intensity by 2012--a phenomenally responsive goal and something we clearly can take to the world community.

Our administration today in a series of bilateral agreements is working with other countries to help them get to where we want and where they want to get, and for the sake of the environment, where we all want us all to go.

I was extremely proud sitting in different forums in Buenos Aires to see the United States talk about the leadership role it has taken and the bilateral partnerships it has agreed to, and all the things that we can help with in the world of change today. It is clearly to our advantage and to the advantage of the world at large.

What Senator Hagel has effectively done today is to get our arms around this issue to try to more directly define it, and to show that we are sensitive to it; that we are responding to the issue as clearly as our administration has and continues to do.

Domestically, the United States has and continues to make world leading investments in climate change science technology. The United States has also implemented a wide range of national greenhouse control initiatives, cash sequestration programs, and international collaborative programs. All of those are bound up within the bilaterals I have talked about that we are engaged in.

The legislation we have introduced today furthers all of these goals.

President Bush has consistently acknowledged how human activity can affect our climate, and that the climate variability does not recognize national borders. The key issue is not whether there is any human- influenced effect. Instead, the issues are how large any human influence may be as compared to natural variability; how costly and how effective human intervention may be in reversing climate variability; and how and what technology may be required over the near and the long term as determined by developments in climate science.

As I said, there can be a legitimate debate about whether more can be done while meeting our Nation's economic objectives. I, for one, support doing more in the areas of technological development to help lift developing countries from the depths of their plights and to advance their cause as we advance ours. That is why I am proud to be working with my colleagues in the Senate. I thank Senator Hagel, Senator Alexander, Senator Dole, and others for the hard work they have put in and the cooperative effort reflected in the bill introduced this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

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

We appreciate the opportunity that the Senator has given us.

Mr. President, I want to discuss the situation that is developing, questioning the value of the separation of powers, about whether one of the powers has rights that succeed the powers of the other. Particularly, my subject now regards the judiciary and whether it is a free, unencumbered judiciary, as it ought to be.

Yes.

Yes, I would be pleased to. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, why should we be surprised they ask for more protection? We have seen atrocious assaults on members of the bench and their families.

What we see is, I think, the beginning of a firestorm, and the problem is that the fuel is being provided by comments made here and in the other body.

I start off by reading from article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It says:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in

one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the

Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

It is pretty clear to me. It says judicial power is vested in our courts, not in the Congress. The Constitution gives the Senate a role in the appointment of judges, and we are supposed to provide advice and consent, not direction. But once a judge is seated on the bench, his or her decisions are not subject to our approval.

The Founding Fathers, in their brilliance, set it up that way on purpose. They wanted to make sure that court decisions would be based on legal grounds, not political grounds. But today there is an orchestrated effort to smear the reputation of the judiciary, especially Federal judges. And the effort is being waged by Republicans in Congress as a prelude to an attempt to change the rules for confirming judicial nominations.

In order to justify this nuclear option, they are trying to paint judges as ``activists'' and ``out of control.''

In reality, it is the leadership of this Congress that is out of control and endangering the future of a fair court system.

In this Chamber on Monday, one of our colleagues said Americans are becoming frustrated by the rulings of the judges--so be it; that is all right, you can be frustrated as much as you want--but then he accused the judges of making ``raw political or ideological decisions.'' That was in the quote from our colleague's statement.

He went on to say:

I wonder whether there may be some connection between the

perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges

are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the

public . . . that it builds up and builds up and builds up to

the point where--

Listen to this--

where some people engage in violence.

These are comments made by a Senator. The remarks are almost unbelievable. Yet they echo the words last week of the House majority leader. Speaking of the judges in the Schiavo case, the House majority leader said:

The time will come for the men responsible for this to

answer for their behavior.

What does that imply? These are inflammatory words. They ignore the fact that our Founding Fathers wanted judges to be insulated from political pressure, and they are words that could easily incite violence against judges.

On this past Sunday, a columnist in the hometown newspaper of the House majority leader, the Houston Chronicle, wrote:

It is time for him to stop sputtering ill-tempered threats,

not only at the judiciary but also at the U.S. Constitution,

which he repeatedly has sworn to uphold.

There were two matters that made things worse, two recent episodes to which the Senator from Massachusetts made reference involving violence against judges and their families. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and the mother of a Federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy, killed four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial. Is that what these people see? Is that what our colleagues saw? Is that what the House majority leader saw, an opportunity to take revenge on judges who make decisions with which they disagree? What are we, some lawless nation where if you do not like it, you kill the person who did it?

Were these judges who suffered terribly while performing their official duties activists? Were they out of control?

The message being sent to the American people by the other side of the aisle is not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous to our Nation's judges.

Like the nuclear option, the goal here is to have judges make political decisions rather than legal decisions. They are trying to intimidate sitting judges, and they are trying to change Senate rules to get bad judges on the bench.

I vow to fight this nuclear option, as well as these irresponsible threatening statements. I do that for my family and for American families across this country.

In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses justice. In this country, any attempt to intimidate judges not only threatens our courts but our fundamental democracy as well.

I note that a letter was sent out most recently by the distinguished majority leader. It is dated March 31, 2005. He invites colleagues--it says: ``Get a Fresh Perspective on Our Nation's''--this is on the majority leader's stationery--``Get a Fresh Perspective on Our Nation's Religious Heritage with a Special Tour of the U.S. Capitol'':

Dear Colleague: I am writing to invite you and your family

to a private tour of the U.S. Capitol Building with

WallBuilders' President, David Barton, on Monday, April 11,

2005. The walking tour will commence at my office--

And he identifies the location of his office and the time, and then adds:

David Barton is the founder and President of WallBuilders,

a national pro-family organization which distributes

historical, legal, and statistical information, and helps

citizens become active in their local schools and

communities. He is an historian noted for his detailed

research into the studied the religious heritage of our

nation. Among some of the interesting facts made by Mr.

Barton:

The U.S. Capitol served as a church building for decades.

The first English-language Bible in America was printed and

endorsed by the United States Congress.

The original Supreme Court--composed of numerous signers of

the Constitution--began their sessions with ministers coming

in and praying for the Court, the jury, and their

deliberations.

The majority leader goes on to say:

You will also learn inspiring stories behind the faces,

paintings, and statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and view

original documents from George Washington and others . . .

which are depicted in artwork. . . .

I have read something of Mr. Barton's biography:

Mr. Barton intends to prove that the separation of church

and state is a myth, and that America's Founders intended for

the United States to be a Christian nation.

Does that mean those of us who are not Christian--whether Muslim, Jewish, or some other religion--are not part of this great nation?

The majority leader is the one making this suggestion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I quote from this report:

Now Barton appears to be angling for a spot on the national

stage. He is touring the nation again, this time with

financial support from the Republican National Committee as

part of what is described as a larger get-out-the-vote

effort.

As he tours the country, Barton leads pastors in sessions

examining the role Christianity played in America's founding

and puts forth his usual shaky thesis. But Barton doesn't

stop there. Barton's not-so-subtle message is that America's

Christian heritage is at risk--and only voting Republican can

save it.

I want those who hear me across America to pay attention: ``Christian heritage is at risk.'' That means that all the outsiders, all of those who approach God differently but are people who believe in a supreme being; people who behave and live peacefully with their neighbors and their friends. No, this is being put forward as an attempt--a not too subtle attempt--to make sure people understand that America is a Christian country. Therefore, we ought to take the time the majority leader offers us, as Members of the Senate, for a chance to learn more about how invalid the principle of separation between church and state is.

I hope the American public sees this plan as the spurious attempt it is.

I ask my colleagues if they want to go to a Christian-only spokesman who will tell us about how insignificant the separation between church and state is. The question is fundamental to the Constitution. Are we a country of laws? If we are, then we must respect the law and we must hold the law free from threats.

How does it feel when one looks at the Federal judge in Chicago who had her husband and her mother murdered because someone disagreed with her legal decision? How do we feel about seeing this guy break loose in Atlanta and kill the judge and a deputy? Senator Kennedy just mentioned the fact that there was a $12 million request for security for judges and courtrooms. I do not blame them. This is not some lawless country where if a judge makes a decision he better run for his life; nor is it Iraq, where those who are upholding the law are getting killed because other people disagree with them. We should not stand for this.

I ask the majority leader to withdraw that invitation to tour the U.S. Capitol with this man who says that this should be a Christian- only country. How can he dare undermine the principles that are in our brilliant Constitution that was written so many years ago? We are entering a dangerous period, in my view.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Wednesday, the U.N. Global Climate Treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force, requiring more than 30 industrialized nations to significantly cut manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation which I believe can help contribute to a new domestic and international consensus on climate change. This legislation builds upon three principles: the need for shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries; the linkages between environmental, economic, and energy policies; and the employment of greenhouse gas intensity as the best measurement upon which to build an effective climate policy.

I thank Senators Alexander, Craig, and Dole for their support and for agreeing to cosponsor these bills, which are titled: The Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act; The Climate Change Technology Deployment Act; and, The Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act.

Global climate policy affects the world's economic, energy, and environmental policies. These circles of interest in policy are interconnected. Climate change does not recognize national borders. It is a shared responsibility for all nations. Dealing with global climate policy requires a level of diplomatic intensity and coordination worthy of the magnitude of the challenge.

We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate. The debate is about solutions. The question we face is not whether we should take action, but what kind of action we should take.

Climate change initiatives should include commitments to research and development, technology, and a more efficient and productive use of energy and resources.

My climate change legislation authorizes new programs, policies, and incentives to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

It focuses on the role of technology, private and public partnerships, and developing countries.

Any climate policy initiative must include clear metrics that recognize the links between energy, the economy, and the environment. Too often these policies are considered in vacuums. It is a global issue.

Bringing in the private sector and creating incentives for technological innovation will be critical to real progress on global climate policy. I believe that greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount of carbon emitted relative to economic output, is the best measurement for dealing with climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the measurement of how efficiently a nation uses carbon emitting fuels and technology in producing goods and services. It captures the links between energy efficiency, economic development, and the environment.

The first bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act, provides the Secretary of State with new authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries for projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity.

It supports the development of a U.S. global climate strategy to expand the role of the private sector, develop public-private partnerships, and encourage the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing technologies in developing countries. This bill directs the Secretary of State to engage global climate change as a foreign policy issue.

It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate the removal of trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies, and establishes an inter-agency working group to promote the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies and practices from the United States.

The legislation authorizes fellowship and exchange programs for foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the expertise and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their countries. Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the solution.

In July 1997, months before the Protocol was signed, the Senate unanimously passed. S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto unless two conditions were met.

First, the United States should not be party to any legally binding obligations on greenhouse gas emission reductions unless developing country, parties are required to meet the same standards. Second, the President should not sign any treaty that ``would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.''

Kyoto does not meet either of these conditions. As it stands, developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto obligations, leaving more than 30 developed countries to address greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations are becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gases, but they are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol.

A recent Congressional Budget Office--CB0--report explains that developing countries are projected within the next 20 years to account for two-thirds of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions as their populations and economies expand. There are reasons for this.

Developing nations cannot achieve. greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy technology and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions. New policies will require recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet these standards, and the necessity of including them in any successful future initiative.

Because Kyoto does not include developing countries, its approach is unrealistic. Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and other developed countries will soon be eclipsed by emissions from developing nations, such as China, which will soon be the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases.

It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized nations to help developing countries by sharing cleaner technology. Developing countries can then ``leapfrog'' over the highly polluting stages of development that countries like the U.S. have already been through.

My legislation includes tax incentives for American businesses to work with foreign countries to help develop clean energy projects and fuel-efficient technologies.

Our second bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act, supports establishing domestic public-private partnerships for demonstration projects that employ greenhouse gas intensity reduction technologies. Our plan provides credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for American businesses and projects that deploy advanced climate technologies or systems. Federal financial assistance includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest coverage, and power production incentive payments.

We are most successful in confronting the most difficult issues when we draw on the strength of the private sector. Public-private partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of the government with the innovation of industry.

This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an inter-agency process to develop and implement a national climate strategy provided by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It establishes a Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, approve, and fund these projects.

Our third bill, the Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act, amends the tax code to provide incentives for investment in climate change technology. It also expresses our support for making permanent the current research and development tax credit, which otherwise expires on December 31, 2005. An article in the Wall Street Journal on February 4, 2005, reported on the potential for ``geologic storage'' of carbon dioxide as a means to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Geologic storage involves pumping carbon dioxide into the ground, rather than dumping it into the atmosphere. BP has been using geologic storage in Algeria's Sahara Desert and Statoil has been working on this in Norway's North Sea. Chevron Texaco is planning a project off the coast of Australia.

The article reports that:

the concept is drawing growing interest because it could

curb global warming more quickly than switching to

alternative energy sources or cutting energy use.

There is still much work to be done. But this kind of technology that was described in the Wall Street Journal article is the kind of technology that must be employed around the world to achieve results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My legislation would support more of this type of activity.

The American people and all global citizens need to better understand global climate change, its connections to our economic and energy policies, and what the realistic options are for addressing this challenge. Any recommendations regarding climate policy must meet the demands of economic growth and development, especially in the developing world. This will require a market-driven, technology-based approach that complements the world's environmental interests, and connects the public and private sectors.

Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the important challenges of our time. America has an opportunity and a responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a responsibility to be shared by all nations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, the Bush administration, the private sector, public interest groups, and America's allies on achievable climate change policy.

By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future for all people, and build a better world.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside and that amendment No. 309, offered by myself and the Senator from South Carolina, be called up.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside and we return to the Dorgan amendment.

What is the status of the time?

I am happy to yield.

No time limit, but we will try to keep it to 40 minutes. Great.

I rise in strong support of this amendment of which my friend from Kentucky is a cosponsor. The lead sponsor of this legislation is Senator Graham as well as myself. What this legislation does is simple. It says to the Chinese, enough already. It says to the Chinese that their unfair trade policies have got to end. It says to the Chinese, this is a shot across your bow. Reform because if you don't, there are going to be dramatic consequences throughout the world, in our country, and in your country as well.

The bottom line is very simple: The Chinese have enjoyed a huge trade surplus with the United States, as this chart shows. Every year it gets larger and larger and larger. Admittedly, some of that trade surplus is due to the rules of free trade. But much of that trade surplus is because the Chinese don't play fairly. They don't let our goods into their country. I can tell you of company after company in New York that cannot sell goods in China or can only sell the goods under certain conditions that make it impossible for them to sell them.

The Chinese make no effort to prevent the ripping off of our intellectual property. These are our crown jewels, the great creativity, the great entrepreneurialness of the American business community that is taken, and they shrug their shoulders. And worst of all, the Chinese, despite the fact that they have tremendous advantages by the rules of free trade, pile on unfair rules that violate free trade.

At the top of that list is the fact that the Chinese peg their currency abnormally low so that their exports get a 27-percent advantage in the United States; our imports get a 27-percent disadvantage when sold in China. Every tenet of free trade, if you believe in it, says they should not peg their currency.

Senator Graham and I have foreborn. We were asked by the administration last year: Let us negotiate. I agreed. Negotiating would be better. But nothing happened. The Chinese give lipservice and don't change their trade policies a jot.

What does this mean for America? It means a huge job loss.

We have suffered dramatically in manufacturing jobs, and now service jobs and other jobs. It means we have a huge trade deficit. It means the dollar

sinks to abysmally low levels, threatening our wealth. It creates chaos in the whole world trading system. The euro and the yen bear the pressure of the Chinese currency evaluation against the dollar.

We are fed up. This is a measure that should not have to be on this floor. The Chinese should play by the rules once and for all. How can we stand by as millions of American workers lose their jobs, as thousands of American companies cannot compete fairly, as our country as a whole has wealth drained from it?

The U.S.-China Commission, set up by this and the other body to try to bring fair trade to China, believes this is the best way to go. The list of manufacturers, business leaders, and labor leaders who support this legislation is long and large. It is a bipartisan amendment. Senator Graham and I have endeavored to pick up equal amounts of support from each side of the aisle. No one seeks political advantage. What we seek, rather, is fairness--fairness in trade, not in the sense of saying we don't want free trade, but in the sense of playing by the rules.

The Chinese do not play by the rules. We have talked and talked and talked, as a nation, to them, with other nations of the world. We have talked and talked to the Chinese until we are blue in the face. The time for action is now. If not now, when? If not us, who? Millions of American workers, thousands of American businesses, look to us to try to set things right. Today, by passing the Schumer-Graham amendment, we can do that. My guess is this would not have to become law. As soon as it passes this body, the Chinese will actually start to negotiate in earnest. But as long as they think all we do is wield words and do nothing to prevent these practices from continuing year after year after year, they will not budge. So it has come to this.

This amendment is probably one of the most important amendments we will vote on this year in this session of the Senate. I urge my colleagues to study it, to not put off the hour of decision, and to support the Schumer-Graham amendment.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the sponsors of the bill, S. 600--the amendment is identical to the bill-- be added to amendment No. 309.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin's name be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, I would like a followup to some of the comments the Senator from South Carolina has made in reference to our legislation.

First, I will mention the cosponsors of this bill, in addition to Senator Graham and myself, as well as Senator Bunning. They are: Senator Reid, the minority leader, Senator Bayh, Senator Dodd, Senator Burr, Senator DeWine, Senator Stabenow, Senator Mikulski, Senator Johnson, Senator Kohl, and Senator Feingold, and there are others as well. Senator Dole I know is a cosponsor as well on the main bill. Now she is added to this amendment as well.

Mr. President, we have asked over and over again those who have said, Don't do this amendment, we know your intention is good, but don't do it, we have asked them over and over, What do we do? Secretary Snow called Senator Graham and me and asked us not to do the amendment, give them a chance to negotiate with the Chinese. That was over a year ago.

You may recall before he even set foot in China, as his plane was in the air, the Chinese Government announced: Do not even try to negotiate on this; we are not changing. We are going to keep pegging our currency--which devalues our currency.

I sat down with a group of leading New York business people. It was at the invitation of one of them who gathered the group of very bright men in an effort to persuade me not to be for this amendment. After an hour and a half, they all agreed it was the right thing to do because we made the argument to them that day that if you believe in free trade, you cannot have one of the largest trading countries abjectly violating the rules. It does not work. It does not work for China, it does not work for America, and it does not work for the rest of the world.

If anyone doubts that the Chinese really play fair, let me mention one little story, and this is the kind of thing that drives us crazy. There is a company in Cortland, NY, called Marietta. Cortland has had tough times. It is an industrial town. Smith Corona used to make typewriters there. It obviously does not do that anymore. Buckbee-Mears had a big ball bearing plant, and that closed. The one saving grace of Cortland was Marietta, which kept growing.

Marietta makes a product we all use. They are the manufacturer of the little soaps and little shampoos that you get when you go to hotels and motels. The way Marietta gets its business, the chairman told me, is that they go to the big hotel companies, such as Hilton, and they say: You pick the color of the soap and the smell of the soap, and we will make sure it is in every room. That is how they have Hilton and other big companies as their customers.

Only one country does not allow Marietta to import its soap and its shampoo--China. When the president called me and I visited the plant up in Cortland, NY, 30 miles south of Syracuse, he told me that the Chinese now do their own business in China. They are using that protected market in China to compete with Marietta now in Southeast Asia, in Europe, and soon in America.

I said: Why don't you file with the WTO?

He said: I will get an answer in about 8 years, and I will be out of business.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I could not agree more with what Senator Graham said. We must do something. This is the best thing to do. It is certainly a lot better than what we have been doing over the last 2 years, which is absolutely nothing.

I urge, on behalf of free trade, on behalf of the world system that really works, and on behalf of saying to countries, You have to play by the rules to gain the benefits, you should not have a $162 billion trade surplus and not play by the rules, I urge them to support the amendment on which Senator Graham and I have worked so long and hard.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, an amendment just passed without notice to any of us that involves a dispute about a helicopter between New York and Connecticut. I did not know of that amendment. Neither did Senator Clinton. Neither did anybody else. So I have to object to this until I see what it is. It was offered by my good friend from Connecticut. I will serve notice, I will hold up this bill and sit here until we deal with this in a fair way. This was a sneak attack. We knew nothing about it. It was not debated. And it is not the right way to do business around here.

So I object to whatever the unanimous consent request was until I see what it is.

Madam President, I tell my colleague, I am pleased to be able to team up with him on this effort. Over the last few months, we have been digging into a variety of areas where waste of taxpayers' dollars has occurred.

I think Senator Dorgan has made the central argument with respect to our amendment; that is, you do not get tough with somebody by wasting money. In other words, we are going to have a fair amount of discussion, I suspect, on this amendment about whether you are being soft minded on Castro, or something of that nature, whether you agree with Castro's political agenda.

What we are talking about is stopping foolishness with respect to frittering away taxpayer dollars. As my colleague has said, what we are faced with is a situation where Fidel Castro has jammed TV Marti's airwaves since their conception. As a result, instead of feeding the Cuban people a glimpse of honest television, what we have been feeding the Cuban people is static and snow. Now, the snow on Cubans' TV screens may be the only snow they get in Cuba, but I can assure you this is about the most expensive snow we have seen on the planet.

What we want to do is protect the interests of taxpayers. We have gone through Fat Albert. Now you have the question of the sequel to Fat Albert, with the President having proposed slashing other programs, particularly programs here at home. How do you argue that something such as this ought to be preserved, that the use of taxpayers' dollars in this area ought to be preserved, where everything here at home is on the chopping block during a belt-tightening environment in Government?

TV Marti was intended to follow in the footsteps of Radio Marti, providing Cubans access to balanced information from the outside world so that Cubans living under Fidel Castro's regime would have a taste of the freedom that Americans enjoy here at home.

We are willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion and debate we are having on the floor of the Senate that Radio Marti enjoys a strong listening audience and successfully transmits news to Cubans from the outside world. But the bottom line is, TV Marti has never come close--never come close--to meeting the standards of Radio Marti. I defy anybody to find a significant group of people in Cuba who see this television.

As Senator Dorgan has mentioned, the process of surveying people, which under normal circumstances would be a good way to determine the extent of use, has now been hot wired so they do not even do the surveys anymore because they are not going to get the results they want to have. They want to have surveys that show a significant number of people are getting this, and they cannot prove it. So if you cannot prove it, you do not put out a survey that says: Oh, no viewers. You sort of figure out a way to make the surveys disappear. That is essentially what has happened.

Our discussions and examination, as we have pursued this issue over the last few months in an effort to root out this waste, indicates virtually nobody sees this. That is where we are now. So we are looking at the prospect, after all of this waste of money--well over $100 million sunk into this static, this static and snow over the years--of spending still more money.

Senator Dorgan and I believe it is time to draw a line in the sand and say: Halt this waste. Halt this frittering away of the American people's scarce dollars.

The President does have a new plan to circumvent the jamming. His idea is to use military aircraft to broadcast TV Marti that way. We have our folks, men and women from Alaska and North Dakota and Oregon, and they are in harm's way today. So at a time when our troops are in harm's way and face great peril around the world, we are talking about transferring military assets that we need to protect their well-being and the well-being of this country. I do not see how you can make the case again that that is a wise expenditure at this time.

So I hope as the Senate debates the Dorgan-Wyden amendment, we can make it clear that when programs such as Radio Marti work, we are willing to make sure the United States plays an active role in trying to make sure people have information, accurate, objective information, on what freedom is all about. But where you are talking about waste, where you are talking about funding programs that may make people say, ``oh, you're getting tough, you're getting tough on Castro,'' when in fact you are wasting money, that is where the two of us are trying to blow the whistle and prevent further efforts to throw taxpayers' money at TV Marti, when there is no evidence it will work.

The money we have spent year after year goes, as I have said, to finance some of the most expensive static, the most expensive snow in the history of television screens. What we ought to be doing is making sure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely. Here it could be used in a whole host of other areas. It is our hope, and the purpose of this amendment, to pull the plug on a program that does not work now, has not worked in the past, and is not going to work in the future.

I am happy to yield.

I appreciate the Senator's question. It seems to me that this is Government Waste 101. This is not complicated. Since its inception in 1980, it appears that this particular program, TV Marti, has had essentially no real Cuban viewership. We have been doing everything we can to find anything resembling a current study, a current report, any body of evidence which would indicate that there is an actual market, a group of Cubans who see this.

As the Senator from North Dakota has indicated in his question, if you go into a coffee shop in Alaska or North Dakota or Oregon, this program doesn't pass the smell test. People are going to say: Look, we don't like Castro. And this isn't a debate about whether you like Castro. I have been studying this issue since my dad wrote a book about the Bay of Pigs, the untold story. So like many of my colleagues, I have been studying this issue for a long time. This is not a referendum on whether you are going to be tough on Castro or whether you like Castro. This is a referendum on whether we are going to allow millions of dollars of Government waste to go forward. We have been doing it for years. We should have pulled the plug some time ago. And yet, because this program sort of masquerades under the title of being tough on Castro, we just keep shoveling money at it.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota, who has spent a great deal of time on it. I also want to come back to

a point the Senator from North Dakota touched on that is very important. Personally, a lot of us would like to reexamine our policy with respect to Cuba. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about one thing: whether we are going to sanction more waste. This program doesn't pass the smell test. You wouldn't possibly be able to explain it in a coffee shop.

My hope is that we support real programs, such as Radio Marti, that are going to make a difference in terms of getting information to the Cuban people about areas where there is waste and not continue to fritter away scarce taxpayer resources.

I thank my colleague for giving me the time.

Madam President, I would like an additional 5 minutes as coauthor of the amendment.

Mr. President, as we conclude with this amendment, I particularly thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for this extra time and get back to this question of what the amendment is really all about. I do not quibble at all with the fact that this is a laudable effort to promote freedom, as the Senator from Florida is talking about, but I believe it has to be about more than effort; it has to be about a result.

For example, something that strikes me as something that would be very useful is to set up Internet Marti. We have seen, for example, what happened in China. What really rattled the Chinese Government was the presence of the Internet. As far as I can tell, they have been struggling to block that out as well. They have not been able to do that. But that is the kind of investment that would make sense to me.

I would be thrilled to work with the distinguished Senator from Florida on wireless technology, for example. I have served on the Commerce Committee. I have a great interest in technology. I think there is a lot of potential as it relates to these kinds of concerns: wireless technology, Internet Marti.

What brings us to the floor today is that we talk about the flicker of freedom, which I am certainly for. As far as I can tell, the only thing the Cuban people see flickering is all that static on TV. So I hope we can save some money, which is the point of this amendment Senator Dorgan and I have offered, and then counsel together on a bipartisan basis through the chairman of the committee, Senator Lugar, Senator Martinez, our friend Senator Nelson, on something that would be practical. Sign me up for something like Internet Marti, something that would be a well-targeted investment, would allow us to build on the potential to cap other technologies, wireless technologies, Web-based technologies. That is something that seems to me makes sense.

I hope my colleagues will approve this money, allow us to start targeting these Government expenditures during a time of belt- tightening in a more cost-effective way.

I urge the passage of the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment. It is interesting that just a few minutes ago we were at the other end of this building in the House of Representatives in a joint session of Congress hearing from President Yushchenko speaking of freedom and the value of freedom and the unique opportunity freedom presents to a people. In order to ensure the ability of folks to raise a family, to conduct their lives, to conduct free commerce, all of these exciting things spark and begin with a flame of freedom. There is no more important way in which the flame of freedom can be conveyed than by information and communication.

We know that today the world of information transforms lives, transforms people around this Earth. We also know that there are still people across the world who do not have the opportunity to hear the free and unfettered bits of information that we so take for granted.

Let me take a moment to describe for you a little bit about what Cuba is like. Cuba is a country today where there is only one source of information: the Cuban Government. Cuba is a country where anyone who would dare to use the Internet without authorization from the Cuban Government, without oversight by the Cuban Government, would have their freedom threatened and taken away. In addition, we also know there is within Cuba a tremendous and growing movement of folks who believe that it is time for Cuba to be free as well and a dissident movement within Cuba. Those people who dare to risk their lives and freedom each and every day, those people who today suffer in Cuba's prison camps because of their desire to seek freedom, those people are emboldened and encouraged by what they can hear and see in the voices and sounds of freedom.

For a long time the United States has had a long and valued tradition of standing with people who are oppressed and suppressed. Mr. Yushchenko spoke this morning eloquently of the words of Ronald Reagan when he said ``tear down this wall'' and what a profound impact that had in beginning the change that occurred in the eastern European nations.

In addition to that, we know the words of Vaclav Havel, other leaders of the ``Velvet Revolution,'' and also the people of Poland, Lech Walesa. And they have said that without a doubt, the thing that made a difference in their lives was Radio Free Europe. I have never heard any one of these patriots of liberty of the modern day say in any public setting that the difference was made for them in seeking freedom when more tourists came and drank rum in their country or when they had the opportunity to see foodstuff in stores that they couldn't buy. But I have heard repeatedly said how valuable was the information and the opportunity to pierce that government control over the people.

You see the control of information is not just about the exchange of news and information, valuable as that is. It is about showing the people who dare to rise in opposition to tyranny that the tyrannical regime that controls their lives is not all powerful, is not omnipresent, but that they, in fact, have the right and opportunity to hear the message of freedom and liberty.

Let me talk specifically about TV Marti. The fact is that while we might mock in commentary what happens with the TV Marti broadcast to Cuba, I have a little different story. Around the time of my ascension to the U.S. Senate, when I had this awesome and unique privilege, the first Cuban American, the first person born in the island of Cuba to ever have the honor to speak from this floor, to be a part of this longest serving democratic institution in the history of mankind, the people of Cuba were rightfully proud and excited by that moment.

I want to tell you that about the time of my taking my oath, I did an interview for TV Marti. I spoke of my thrill and my pride and my hopes and aspirations as I came to the Senate. That interview was broadcast by Commando Solo. That interview was broadcast in the only way in which they can pierce Castro's control over his people about information: by flying this airplane over international waters in a way that can and does, in fact, pierce Castro's blockade and jamming.

That information that got through that night, that interview was seen by people in the hometown where I grew up, Sagua La Grande, Cuba. It is a small city on the northern coast of Cuba where I had the joy of growing up as a small child and where today there are people who still remember me and my family, and where there were people who, unbelievably to me, heard the broadcast and were able to communicate through telephone and otherwise about what they had seen and heard on TV that day, about the images of me taking my oath on this very floor, about the images of me celebrating with other people who supported my candidacy, who came from Florida, many of them Cuban Americans who rode on a bus for 18 hours to come here and join with me and celebrate.

They joined with me here, but those people in Cuba had the opportunity to see those images in my very hometown where I was born, to see me take the oath of office from Vice President Cheney, President of the Senate. That happened because of the Commando Solo flights. It was a moving experience to the people in this little town, the people who I know sometimes seem unimportant and are not very well known but who, in fact, have the rare opportunity to see that blockade pierced.

So what is our hope? Our hope is we can expand that, that we can do more of it, that we can transfer the technology we now have and the ability to pierce the information blockade so that more and more people can have this information. Too often we talk about an economic blockade with Cuba. The greatest blockade that exists in Cuba, in the words of some of Cuba's dissidents, is the blockade of the Cuban Government against its own people, whether it be for economic opportunity, the rights of the individual, or just to perceive and hear information that comes across the airwaves.

I believe that while imperfect and while still a work in progress, for us to turn our backs on those people in Cuba who depend today on the little bit of information they can get through Radio and TV Marti would be a step away from the long and proud tradition of this country to stand by people who are oppressed. To harken back to the words of President Bush, to the words he gave upon taking office for his second term, if you are oppressed, we stand with you. If you seek freedom, we will be by your side. That wave of democracy that President Bush has begun in places such as the Middle East, that is the very hope that we have.

The President's policy toward Cuba began on May 10 of last year. It is a dynamic policy. It is not just about what we don't do; it is about what we do, about the proactive measures such as the Commando Solo flights, the opportunity for TV Marti to, in fact, be seen by the Cuban people, the opportunity for us to help the dissident movements, for us to proactively help the people of Cuba to remove the yoke of tyranny from their backs.

I believe that when the facts are examined, we would also know that the Interests Section Survey in Havana monitors the ability of the Commando Solo flights to be seen by the Cuban people. There is no such thing in Cuba as a Gallup poll or the ability to even speak freely about what you watch on TV, but 16 percent of those surveyed responded in the affirmative to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana that they were, in fact, seeing TV Marti and that it reached an audience. It does not cover the entire island. It doesn't cover as much as we would like. But each and every day, we make more happen with it.

I am proud to be a supporter of the efforts of TV Marti, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment which would end the little glimmer of light that is available to the people of Cuba today and that otherwise would not be there for them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question? I wonder if the Senator has considered why the Cuban Government would spend all the money and make all the effort that it takes for them to jam these broadcasts. If it is not insignificant, if it is not important, why does the Senator think the Cuban Government goes on day after day jamming at great cost and expense each and every time we have broadcasts to Cuba?

Will the Senator yield?

We are trying to do the debate within 40 minutes. That was our goal.

Mr. President, first, I acknowledge that it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Schumer and others to develop this amendment. We have been involved in this effort for 2 years. We come from different ends of the political spectrum on many issues, but we found common ground here because we hear the comments, whether it is in South Carolina or New York, from manufacturing entities and other business people basically saying China has a business relationship that we cannot compete with. The political dynamic here is real.

Senator Lugar explained how this amendment affects this bill. I want to let him know I totally understand that. We are now basically running out of options. As Senator Schumer said, whether this amendment becomes law is probably not the point. The point is that the Chinese need to understand where the Senate and House stand. The President spoke numerous times about trying to get China to change the value of the currency. Secretary Snow has been to China and brought up this topic. There has been a begrudging movement in words but none in deeds. Talk is literally cheap with the Chinese. Their money is cheaper and it is having an effect on our economy and world relationships that need to be met with decisive political action, because the truth is, for the last decade we have had a very mixed message when it comes to China--both Republicans and Democrats. The only thing the Chinese understand is resolve. The one thing this country has had, when it comes to China in terms of trade, is the lack of resolve.

No one is advocating building a wall around our country. China presents a great opportunity for American business. What we are advocating is allowing China to become part of the world community under the same set of rules we all abide by. They are missing the mark by miles. The money they are making off these trade agreements, where they cheat, is not going into the hands of the everyday Chinese worker; it is going into their military. If we had the same approach during the Soviet Union era by having trade deals with the Soviet Union that would be constantly violated, enriching the government, the Soviet Union would never have collapsed.

China's Communist government is taking the benefit of these trade deals and enriching their military and growing in economic and military strength in the way that I think hampers freedom. It doesn't help spread it. Here are the facts. Since March, 2002, the U.S. dollar has fallen 30 percent against the euro. You know what that has done against the yuan? Not one change. Thirty percent against the euro, but no change against the yuan. They always create an advantage. When we passed normal trading relations with China in 2001, the trade deficit was $100 billion; today it is $160 billion--a 60-percent increase of a trade imbalance since PNTR was passed.

Now, is our market access improving? There is a 5-percent increase of American goods going to China. If you don't believe me and Senator Schumer, and you think we are advocating a protectionist philosophy that is antiquated and outdated in the 21st century, maybe you will believe the U.S.-China Commission, which was authorized and empowered by the Congress, the Senate and the House, to investigate China's business dealings, their trade policies.

I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record.

What do they tell us? There was a general consensus among the witnesses--they held 2 days of hearings--that China remains in violation of its WTO obligations in a number of areas impacting vital U.S. economic interests:

It has become increasingly clear that China is not meeting

key commitments it made when joining the WTO and that our

trade laws have to date been insufficient in addressing these

problems.

They lay out the problems: China currency manipulation, intellectual property theft; treating China as a nonmarket economy; lack of enforcement of U.S. trade remedies that are on the books; China subsidies to businesses that are in violation to WTO.

We have had a very tepid response to China's cheating across the board and we are paying a huge price. Many Americans are losing jobs not because they are being outworked, or because the Chinese are smarter, but because they are being cheated out of their jobs. One way is that the Chinese have taken the value of their currency and artificially suppressed it, creating a discount on every product coming out of China to the detriment of American manufacturing and the world community at large, and all we do is talk to China.

A lot of people are depending on us to do something about China in a constructive fashion. Is this the best way to have done it? No. This is the only way I know of, after 2 years, to get anybody's attention, our attention or China's attention. We passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in 2003 that was a compromise that Senator Schumer and I made. OK, let's get the Senate on record. It was a sense of the Senate, and no one objected that China is manipulating its currency in violation of international norms and it costs Americans jobs. That was 2 years ago.

Last year, we were going to put it on the FSC/ETI bill. Everybody said you are going to mess up the bill. So we had a colloquy with Senator Grassley, who is a good friend, and we talked about holding hearings and we talked about engaging China anew, because we didn't want to mess up the bill by bringing this bill forward. That was over a year ago. Not one thing has changed--not one hearing--and the problem gets worse and worse. The balance of trade between us and China is absolutely shameful. We are doing nothing about it other than talking.

Well, this amendment does something about it other than talking. Let me tell you what the U.S.-China Commission said about currency manipulation.

The commission recommends that Congress pursue the

following measures to move China toward a significant near-

term upward reevaluation of the yuan by at least 25 percent.

We look moderate compared to the United States-China Economic Security Review Commission.

Consider imposing an immediate, across-the-board tariff on

Chinese imports unless China significantly strengthens the

value of its currency against the dollar or against a basket

of currencies.

The experts tell us the yuan is 15 to 40 percent below its true market, causing havoc on American manufacturing.

Reduce the ability of the Treasury Department to use

technical definitions to avoid classifying China as a

currency manipulator. . . .

They have a list things for us to do. One is imposing an across-the- board tariff. What I and Senators Schumer, Bunning, and others are suggesting we do is put China on notice: In the next 6 months, allow China to move toward reevaluation in a way that will help the American economy, will make China a true, fair member of nations, and if they do not act in the next 6 months in some significant way, then we will look at the ability of this country to protect ourselves against a Communist dictatorship that cheats. And if the Senate is not here to protect the American worker against a Communist dictatorship that cheats, what the heck are we here for?

I hope we will send a message to China they can understand because apparently they do not understand what we are saying any other way.

I have enjoyed this experience working in a bipartisan fashion to stand up for American business interests that are being cheated out of jobs because of a Communist dictatorship that cheats and is building up their military at our expense.

To the American manufacturing community, there are a million other ways we can help. I talked with Governor Engler today. We are going to do more domestically and internationally to level the playing field, but this is a significant start. Will it solve all the problems? No. Will this put China on notice as they have never been put on notice before? Yes. And if we fail to adopt this message, we are also sending a message to China. I am not sure that is a message the American worker can stand having sent to China.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burr be added as a cosponsor.

I do not believe we have any more speakers on deck.

Madam President, there has been a good debate on this amendment. It is an important amendment. I just wanted to make the point, however, that we have reached a point in our bill where we are going to have to move expeditiously; therefore, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield to the distinguished Senator.

OK.

Mr. President, the President of the United States has directed deployment of aircraft with capability of transmitting radio and television signals into Cuba. Thanks to the aircraft, plus Radio and TV Marti, they are reaching parts of the island that were previously unable to receive those signals. That is tremendously important.

As oppressive as that regime is, the state exerts extensive censorship. The Cubans are told only what the state wants them to know and are denied the right to obtain accurate information on Cuba and the world. We need to do all we can to open that up.

I appreciate the debate. It has offered avenues of constructive criticism of the program, but the program needs to continue. It is vital to our security and, we believe, the future of the Cuban people.

I renew my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, in a moment I want to ask the Chair to recognize Senators Schumer and Graham for an amendment on Chinese currency. Before I ask the Chair to do that, let me simply indicate that the status of our bill is such that amendments that clearly fall in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee are going to be opposed not only by that committee but by the so-called blue-slip process, which means that our bill might not receive consideration on the floor of the Senate or ultimately on the floor of the House.

So leaving aside the substance of whatever may be the merits of an amendment, we are talking about an existential question for this bill itself as to whether it survives or has the hope of doing so.

For that reason, I just want to advise Senators why, at the end of about 40

minutes of debate, which I hope will be adequate for an exploration by the proponents of what they wish to do, I will be moving to table, to preserve really, this bill, the bill we are on. At that point I will ask the support of the body to table the Schumer-Graham amendment, whatever might be its merits, on the basis of jurisdiction.

We are going to have this problem two or three more times on amendments that have been suggested by Senators. So I make that point now, that will have to be the course of this chairman to preserve at least some hope we will have an authorization bill at all at the end of this process.

Having said all that, I am hopeful the Chair might recognize Senators Schumer and Graham for a presentation of their amendment. And after about 40 minutes, we will come to a conclusion.

Proceed.

Mr. President, as I indicated at the outset of the debate, as we asked recognition of the Senators who have spoken so eloquently on this amendment, the issue before the Senate is the preservation of the authorization bill itself that we are debating. The issue has been often expressed, but let me mention it again, that the Finance Committee claims jurisdiction of this item. They also have indicated, both on the Senate and House sides, that they will prevent passage of the authorization bill for the State Department and foreign assistance if this item and, for that matter, several others that have been included in prospective amendments are adopted as a part of this bill.

I will not debate the merits of the amendment on China. We have had a hearing before our Foreign Relations Committee and delved into what is clearly a very complex and important issue. I do know, however, that even as we had the hearing for our own information and that of the public, we understood the jurisdictional question. We have tried to respect that. Therefore, on this amendment and on others that also are clearly in the jurisdiction of the Finance or of other committees, I feel compelled, for the sake of preserving this bill, to move to table the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Jersey would they be in agreement that a 15-minute presentation at this point would be possible, and then they would yield to me? I make this request because we have an existential crisis with the bill. Unless we solve it, we will probably not be continuing. This is serious. I understand you have an important colloquy. If it can be contained in 15 minutes, that would be fine.

Yes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as has been mentioned.

Mr. President, work continues among a number of Senators who are deeply interested, as I am, in the resolution and the amendment ahead of us. For the moment it appears we ought to give more time to this discussion. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in a moment I am hopeful the Chair may recognize the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, for 10 minutes in which he will offer an amendment. On our side, we are prepared to accept the amendment. Therefore, we will at least make some progress while the other discussion continues.

Mr. President, as I indicated at the outset, we are prepared on our side to accept the amendment. Therefore, I urge its adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I am advised the distinguished Senator from Illinois has a statement he would like to make at this time. I ask the Chair to allocate 5 minutes to the Senator and then to recognize me following that statement.

I amend my request that after I am recognized, the distinguished Senator from Alabama be recognized.

Mr. President I ask that the Chair now recognize the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I understand he will discuss amendments but not offer them at this time.

Mr. President, let me respond briefly to the distinguished Senator from New York. The amendment that was offered by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, as I indicated before he was on the floor, we were prepared to accept. We presumed there was not Democratic Party opposition to that; there were not members of the committee on the floor. Senator Dodd is a member of the committee, and, therefore, we acted in good faith, as we have to. We are trying very hard to proceed amendment by amendment, depending upon Senators to be on the floor, to be represented by their party officials and by their staffs. So I am hopeful the distinguished Senator from New York and the Senator from Connecticut may be able to agree on a course of action, but from our standpoint, we believe the amendment was offered and accepted legitimately and in due course.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.