A bill to authorize the extension of unconditional and permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will be considering S. 600, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. The Foreign Relations Committee passed this bill on March 3 by a vote of 18-0. This is the third successive year that the Foreign Relations Committee has reported out a comprehensive Foreign Affairs Authorization bill by a unanimous vote. We are pleased to have this opportunity to bring it to the floor for the Senate's consideration. I want to especially thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader for their assistance and support in bringing this measure to the floor.

This legislation gives voice to Senate views on issues touching every continent--from tbe threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to the safety of Americans working in our embassies overseas, to an increased and focused effort to spur economic growth in the poorest countries. It authorizes the executive branch to take important actions on a wide range of issues. And, it authorizes appropriations for our diplomats, our foreign aid workers, and our Peace Corps volunteers, as well as the programs and policies that they manage on behalf of the United States.

These people are our civilian soldiers--they pursue a bold war on terrorism and a noble and far-sighted battle against disease, poverty, and humanitarian disasters. Most work in circumstances where the threat level is severe. American diplomats and aid workers frequently have been targets of terrorism while serving overseas. But they understand the importance of representing the United States, and they go anyway.

At this time in our history we are experiencing a confluence of foreign policy crises that is unparalleled in the post-Cold War era. Our Nation has lived through the September 11 tragedy, and we have responded with a worldwide war against terrorism. We have fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are likely to be engaged in security and reconstruction efforts for years to come. We have been confronted by nuclear proliferation problems in North Korea and Iran that threaten U.S. national security and regional stability. We are continuing efforts to safeguard Russia's massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and to prevent proliferation throughout the world. We have experienced strains in the Atlantic Alliance, even as we have expanded it. We are trying to respond to the AIDS pandemic in Africa, the natural disasters in the Indian Ocean region, and the man-made calamity in Sudan. We are trying to take advantage of openings in the Middle East peace process and spur the advance of democracy in many countries. Emerging powers, including China, India, and Brazil, may soon reconfigure the world economically and politically in ways that we do not yet comprehend.

There is a tendency in the media and sometimes in this body to see diplomatic activities as the rival of military solutions to problems. We have to get beyond this simplistic formulation. We have to understand that our military and our diplomats are both instruments of U.S. national power that depend on one another. They both help shape the international environment and influence the attitudes of governments and peoples. They both gather information and provide expertise that is vital to the war on terrorism. And they both must be unsurpassed in their capabilities, if the United States is going to survive and prosper.

Americans rightly demand that U.S. military capabilities be unrivaled in the world. Should not our diplomatic strength meet the same test? If a greater commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear weapon, or the spiral into chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and hunger, the investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost.

In considering this legislation today, it is important to remember that since the end of the Cold War, the Foreign Affairs Account frequently has suffered

from inadequate funding. The American public generally understands that the United States reduced military spending in the 1990s following the fall of the Soviet Union. Few are aware, however, that this peace dividend spending reduction theme was applied even more unsparingly to our foreign affairs programs. In constant dollars, the foreign affairs budget was cut in six consecutive years from 1992 to 1998. This slide occurred even as the United States sustained the heavy added costs of establishing new missions in the fifteen emergent states of the former Soviet Union. In constant dollars, the cumulative effect was a 26 percent decrease in our foreign affairs programs. As a percentage of GDP, this six-year slide represented a 36 percent cut in foreign affairs programs.

By the beginning of the new millennium, these cuts had taken their toll. The General Accounting Office reported that staffing shortfalls, lack of adequate language skills, and security vulnerabilities plagued many of our diplomatic posts. In 2001 the share of the U.S. budget devoted to the international affairs account stood at a paltry 1.18 percent--barely above its post-World War II low and only about half of its share in the mid-1980s, during the Reagan administration.

Under President Bush, funding for the Foreign Affairs Account has increased substantially. The President has requested increases in each of the last four budgets. In this year's budget, the President has requested a 13 percent increase over last year's appropriated amount for the Foreign Affairs Account--the largest percentage increase of any major account in the budget. This is a tangible demonstration of the President's commitment to diplomatic strength. Congress must now do its part by providing the resources and authorities that the President needs to carry out an effective foreign policy.

The bill before us preserves the funding decisions in the President's request. Inevitably, members will have some differences with the specifics of the President's request. But we should recognize that this bill represents a generous attempt to raise the profile and effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy. Those of us who have advocated funding increases for the 150 Account should take ``Yes'' for an answer. Accordingly, I believe that if amendments are offered to increase funding for a particular program, they should include offsets.

The bill funds the Millennium Challenge Corporation at the President's requested level of $3 billion. Some have argued that the President should have requested $5 billion--the amount he originally had conceived for the corporation's third year of funding. Others have argued that $3 billion is too much for a new venture that is just getting off the ground, and that some of this money should be shifted to other priorities. My own view is that $3 billion is a reasonable amount, given the scope of the program and its potential for spurring democratic reforms overseas. The credibility of the program, which foreign nations are observing closely, would be strengthened if the Senate endorsed the President's funding request. For these reasons, I will oppose amendments that seek to use MCC funds as an offset for other priorities.

This bill contains numerous policy initiatives, most notably the bipartisan Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act, which was developed in the Foreign Relations Committee and included in last year's bill. The bill before the Senate also includes a 10 percent increase in danger pay for State Department employees who serve in dangerous posts overseas, funding for refugee assistance, and provisions designed to improve protections for women, children, and other vulnerable populations in the context of war or disaster.

Since the mid-1980s, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibility to pass an Omnibus Foreign Assistance Act. Several discrete measures, such as the Millennium Challenge Account, the global AIDS bill, the Freedom Support Act, and the Support for Eastern European Democracy Act, have been enacted. But in the absence of a comprehensive authorization, much of the responsibility for providing guidance for foreign assistance policy has fallen to the appropriations committees. Appropriators have kept our foreign assistance programs going, but in many cases, they have had to do so without proper authorization. In some years, the Congress did pass a State Department authorization bill, but that bill only authorizes about 35 percent of the Function 150 Account. To fund the remaining accounts, appropriators frequently had to waive the legal requirement to appropriate funds only following the passage of an authorization bill.

Passing a comprehensive Foreign Affairs authorization bill is good politics, as well as good policy. It is good politics because it underscores the leadership of this Senate at a time when our country is in peril. It is good politics because foreign assistance is an instrument of national power in the war on terrorism. It is good politics because it recognizes that our standard of living, the retirements of our parents, our children's educations, advancements in our health care, and the security of Americans can be undermined by what happens overseas. It recognizes that American prosperity is far more likely to be sustained if we are successful in spreading democracy, stability, and free market principles.

I thank the members of my committee for their hard work during the authorization process. Members on both sides of the aisle devoted many hours and much thought to constructive approaches to a number of very difficult foreign policy questions. Although this is a new bill developed during the last several months, it reflects much work that has been done by the Committee during the previous Congress. Committee hearings during the last 2 years on post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, U.S. policy in the Middle East, developments on the Korean peninsula, relations between India and Pakistan, public diplomacy, foreign assistance, and numerous other topics have been well attended. In fact, no Senate committee held as many hearings or met as often as the Foreign Relations Committee during the last Congress.

I especially thank the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, for his support of this process and his leadership in foreign policy matters. We have agreed on the vast majority of provisions in this bill, and when we have disagreed, we have worked hard to bridge our differences and find bipartisan solutions. We have always shared the common goal of bringing good legislation to the floor for the Senate's judgment.

It has long been my intent that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approach foreign policy problems in a bipartisan spirit. This legislation reflects the committee's success in that regard. Republicans and Democrats have worked together closely to seek consensus, reason together, make compromises and craft excellent legislation. Our committee is united in the belief that passing a comprehensive Foreign Affairs authorization bill will enhance U.S. national security.

I am looking forward to the debate on this bill and the constructive contributions of Members at this important time in our Nation's history.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise to offer an amendment that strikes section 401, a section which establishes a permanent cap of

27.1 percent on the American share of cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The Helms-Biden legislation passed in 1999 anticipated the U.S. share of peacekeeping dues would decline to 25 percent in total. This remains an important goal of the U.S. policy toward the U.N.

This issue has raised strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the perspective of Senators who want to preserve a 27.1- percent cap as well as those who want the cap to be reduced to the 25 percent level in accordance with the Helms-Biden legislation. We would all like to see American financial responsibilities at the United Nations reduced.

We should acknowledge that existing U.S. law sets 25 percent as our target for peacekeeping contributions. I believe we should give the U.S. negotiators the most leverage possible to attain the U.S. goals. Passing a permanent 27.1-percent cap in this bill at this moment might reduce that leverage.

In coming weeks Congress will have further opportunities to work with President Bush to craft the most effective means possible of reducing the U.S. share of peacekeeping assessments. I believe this is an issue on which further consultation with the executive branch is certainly warranted. This is particularly true at a moment when the Secretary General has recently put forward a substantial United Nations reform plan, and the President's nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. is pending before the Senate.

After discussions with the majority leader and other Members, I have come to the conclusion that we will facilitate further consultations on the peacekeeping cap with the administration and improve prospects for passage of the underlying legislation if we strike this provision. Consequently, I am hopeful Senators will join me in passing this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his very thoughtful comments about my work in the Foreign Relations Committee. I thank him for offering this amendment.

Let me point out, as the Senator from Arizona has already, a number of bills attempting to achieve repeal of Jackson-Vanik have been introduced in both Houses. But they have not come to conclusion, and apparently today that will happen.

I am one of the authors of one of those bills, S. 632, which authorizes the extension of permanent normal trade relations treatment with Ukraine. As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, unfortunately Ukraine is still subject to the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which sanctions nations for failure to comply with freedom of emigration requirements. My bill, and I believe Senator McCain's bill, would repeal permanently the application of Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine. As has been mentioned by the distinguished Senator, that bill has been referred to the Finance Committee, which still has it under consideration.

But I would offer this argument. In the post-Cold-War era, Ukraine has demonstrated a commitment to meeting the requirements for the lifting of Jackson-Vanik and, in addition, has expressed a strong desire to abide by free market principles and good governance.

Last November 21, I served as President Bush's personal representative to the runoff election between Prime Minister Yanukovich and Viktor Yushchenko. During that visit, I promoted free and fair election procedures that would strengthen worldwide respect for the legitimacy of the winning candidate. Unfortunately, that was not possible at that time. The Government of Ukraine allowed, or aided and abetted, wholesale fraud and abuse that changed the results of that November 21 election. It is clear that Prime Minister Yanukovich did not win that election.

In response, however, the people of Ukraine rallied in the streets and squares and demanded justice. After tremendous international pressure and mediation, Ukraine repeated the runoff election. It was held on December 26. A newly named Central Election Commission and a new set of election laws led to a much improved process. International monitors concluded the process was generally free and fair. Viktor Yushchenko was inaugurated as President of, Ukraine, and tomorrow he will address a joint session of our Congress.

Extraordinary events have occurred in Ukraine over the last several months since the December 26 election. A free press has revolted against Government intimidation and reasserted itself. An emerging middle class has found its political footing. A new generation has embraced democracy and openness. A society has rebelled against the illegal activities of its Government. It is in our interest to recognize and to protect these advances in Ukraine.

The United States has a long record of cooperation with Ukraine through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act.

Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world with the fall of the Soviet Union. Through the Nunn-Lugar Program, the United States has assisted Ukraine in eliminating this deadly arsenal and joining the nonproliferation treaty as a nonnuclear state.

One of the areas where we can deepen United States-Ukraine relations is bilateral trade. Trade relations between the United States and Ukraine are currently governed by a bilateral trade agreement signed in 1992. There are other economic agreements in place seeking to further facilitate economic cooperation between the United States and Ukraine, including a bilateral investment treaty which was signed in 1996 and a taxation treaty signed in the year 2000. In addition, Ukraine commenced negotiations to become a member of the World Trade Organization in 1993, further demonstrating its commitment to adhere to the free market principles of fair trade.

In light of its adherence to freedom of immigration requirements, democratic principles, compliance with threat reduction, and several agreements on economic cooperation, the products of Ukraine should not be subject to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik.

There are areas in which Ukraine needs to continue to improve. These include market access, protection of intellectual property, and reduction of tariffs. The United States must remain committed to assisting Ukraine in pursuing market economic reforms. The permanent waiver of Jackson-Vanik and establishment of permanent normal trade relations will be the foundation on which further progress in a burgeoning economic partnership can be made.

My colleagues on the Finance Committee have committed to joining me in supporting this important legislation. It is essential that the Finance Committee and the full Senate act promptly to bolster this burgeoning democracy to promote stability in this region. I am most hopeful that in the course of the day, we will take favorable action on this amendment.

For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise for the point of giving information to all Senators about the legislation we have in front of us. As the Chair has observed, several minutes have passed without activity. We have through staff attempted to notify all Senators who might be anticipating offering amendments or action on this bill. This will be an excellent opportunity to do so prior to the time the two party luncheons are held and a recess for that reason is called. We know that following lunch, there will be two important amendments offered, and we welcome those. I would like to proceed to

our debate and votes, with disposition of amendments that are now pending.

I simply mention, Mr. President, that I recognize, as does the Chair, many Senators are under some urgent requirements in terms of scheduling in this particular week, as we mourn the death of Pope John Paul II. Some Senators are contemplating potential travel to the funeral of the Pope. Others have other requirements. So it would be my intent, as we conclude these amendments that are available, to move for final passage of the bill, to conclude activity on this bill today and as early today as possible.

My understanding is a potential debate on the Social Security issue will ensue at some point this evening after we have concluded activities on the authorization bill. So we might make that more readily available and that time more certain. I mention this because for Senators who do have amendments, even if they are not completely formulated, I request they bring those to the floor so that staff on both sides of the aisle can work through those amendments to find an acceptable form. It would be at least our general view of a liberal policy of adopting amendments that enhance the authorization process and do no violence at least to the foreign policy objectives of the United States.

With that in mind, hopefully those listening to the debate will hear our plea, proceed with amendments, and help us with the activities.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a group of amendments to S. 600 that have the approval of the managers of the bill. The package has bipartisan support. I intend to ask they be agreed to by unanimous consent as soon as the ranking member has joined me in the Senate.

I have received word that the presence of the ranking member will not be required. Staff on both sides of the aisle have cleared these amendments; therefore, I ask they be agreed to en bloc by unanimous consent.

I simply point out these are amendments that followed the consideration of the bill in the Committee on Foreign Relations and were suggested by the administration. They have been carefully considered over the course of several days, and there has been unanimous consent on the list that was agreed to.

I encourage Senators who have amendments, once again, to come to

the Senate to make their presence known so we can work with them. It would be our hope we could accept most of those amendments or work on modifications so they can be part of the legislation, as has been the case with the package we just agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation amending the Constitution to permit direct popular elections for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States.

I am mindful of the fact that altering the text of one of our country's most sacred documents requires careful thought, study and debate. But for me the status quo raises too many problems and questions.

The Electoral College is an archaic system. It may have been suitable during the founding years of the Republic. But it is hardly appropriate for the 21st century modern democracy that we have become.

Fundamental fairness dictates that we have a single, nationwide count of popular votes. Hopefully my proposal represents the starting point for how best to structure a system to accomplish that.

My approach is simple: the President is elected through a direct popular vote of the American people. Every American's vote counts the same, whether they live in Florida, Maine, California, or Nebraska. All the complexities of the current electoral college system are swept away. With my legislation the winner of the presidency is the individual who tallies the most votes cast in the election.

For those who believe the Electoral College is a reasonable basis for electing the President, consider the following: would a foreign country today, creating a new democratic election system from scratch, rely on the U.S. Electoral College as a model? Not likely.

Let me begin by offering a few facts and observations about the current system: the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose 39 States in a general election but still win the Presidency; the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose a general election, by 10 million popular votes or more, yet still be elected President; in a recent presidential election a candidate received nearly 20 million popular votes, roughly 19 percent of all votes cast, but that translated into 0 electoral votes; the Electoral College allows an elector to refuse to represent the majority of popular votes cast for a presidential candidate in his State's election--he can arbitrarily switch sides and throw his lot in with an alternative candidate, which has happened nine times since 1820; when a presidential election produces a 269 to 269 tie in electoral votes between candidates, the President is chosen through a ``contingent'' election conducted by the House of Representatives with each state's delegation casting a single vote--which unfairly grants equal status to California, whose population is 35.5 million, and Wyoming, whose population is 500,000; making matters worse, when such a ``contingent election'' occurs, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won the popular vote in the State they collectively represent--they are free to vote as they see fit; the two ``constant'' or ``senatorial'' electors automatically assigned to each State give less populous states a disproportionate advantage in the Electoral College vote count compared to States with more sizable populations; the winner-take-all concept for awarding a State's electoral votes disenfranchises all voters in a State who supported a losing candidate in that State; and finally, the Electoral College undermines national campaigns by causing presidential candidates to focus on a handful of contested States and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other States.

The political and substantive utility of this system, full of pitfalls and loopholes, is very hard to discern. Voter apathy is a function of a system signaling to people that their vote does not count, and the Electoral College manages that in spades.

Now, I don't take this effort on lightly, because we have amended the Constitution a mere twenty-seven times since the founding of the nation. But as a matter of practical necessity, fairness and common sense, we need to consider the inherent inequities involved with the Electoral College.

My hope is that we can treat this in a bipartisan and nonparochial manner that benefits the whole of the country. I appreciate that states and regions are affected differently, California among them, but my motivations derive from improving the American federalist system in a way that eliminates undue consequences.

I have not been solicited by any particular interest group, constituency, or voting bloc to amend the Constitution. At bottom, I believe this is a matter of serious import. Good public policy demands that we give this subject sustained attention and I intend to do that through the Senate hearing process.

There was a time, of course, when the Electoral College adequately represented the voting needs of the country. In the 1780s there were no formal political parties as such, no experience with conducting national campaigns for office, and no lack of mistrust among States large and small about protecting their interests.

The Founding Fathers understood: first, the social, economic and political disconnectedness that existed among the States; second, the federalist system of governance was only beginning to take root; third, the dearth of news and communications networks across the country made national campaigning difficult; and fourth, the likelihood that a local ``favorite son'' or regional candidate would prevail in a national presidential election.

This combination of factors justified an indirect election of the President through a College of Electors.

Inimical reasons existed for going this route as well. Had the Framers of the Constitution adopted the one man, one vote system, Northern States that permitted blacks to vote in popular national elections could have exercised greater influence in electing the President than southern states. And States that independently extended rights of suffrage to women also could have gained an advantage.

The 15th Amendment in 1870 extending voting rights to Black men and many years later women gaining those same rights laid these issues to rest. With the obstacles of racism and sexism now gone as reasons justifying the creation, of the Electoral College, the puzzlement over why we haven't updated the presidential election system only continues.

Regardless, as a means to reconcile the interests of State governments and the Federal government, of northern and southern states, of majority and minority interests groups, and to let all these voices be heard come election time, the Electoral College was considered a just compromise. Its basic form was adopted during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Political events occurred soon thereafter, though, prompting passage of the 12th Amendment and the first major changes in the Electoral College system. The presidential election of 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, ended in a tie of electoral votes, causing the House of Representatives to break the deadlock through a ``contingent election''. A messy political imbroglio ensued. It was only after many rounds of negotiations that Jefferson won the Presidency.

Importantly, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1804 to streamline the process of contingent elections. I would observe that passage of the 12th Amendment confirmed that the Electoral College system was, and remains, appropriately subject to change.

Legislators in 1804 did not delay in amending the Constitution for reasons of fairness and practicality, and nor should we in 2004 fail to address the imperfect design that thwarts the will of the American public.

Even with the 12th Amendment in place, the Electoral College managed to turn logic on its head in presidential elections throughout the 19th century. Minority presidents, so-called for winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote, were elected three times--John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

And in 2000 the same problem re-surfaced, the fourth time in our Nation's short history, with Vice President Al Gore edging George Bush by 537,895 popular votes, but losing the electoral college by a mere 5 votes.

The Nation can be thankful, frankly, that we have only had disputed elections in just these four instances. A shift of a few thousand votes from one candidate to another in past presidential elections could have ordained similar disarray. Some noteworthy examples include: despite losing the popular vote by the sizable margin of 1.7 million votes, Gerald Ford in 1976 needed only 5,559 more votes in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii to reach the magical number of 270 electoral votes and he would have been returned to the White House.

And had California, Illinois and Ohio posited 29,000 more votes in Thomas Dewey's column, he lost the over popular vote by a wide margin, 2.1 million, in 1948, the face of history may have been changed forever with Harry Truman never returning to the White House.

And most recently, a shift of a mere 68,000 votes in Ohio from President George Bush's column to John Kerry would have allowed the Democrat to

win the electoral vote count, 271 to 267, and the Presidency, even though Bush enjoyed a sizable 3.5 million margin in popular votes cast.

According to some estimates, we have had no fewer than 22 near misses, all of which could have ended up as contentious as the 2000 contest. We are tempting fate by ignoring this problem: sooner or later a dramatic incongruity will occur between an electoral vote winner contrasted against a different popular vote winner whose margin of victory runs into the millions.

Electoral College anomalies don't end with disparities between the electoral and popular vote winners. The phenomenon of the ``Faithless Elector'' reflects a further structural defect in the Electoral College System.

History shows that electors have not been faithful to the presidential and vice presidential tickets winning the most votes in their respective states. They may initially pledge to the winning candidate, but enjoy individual discretion to change their vote when electoral votes are formally counted.

Contemporary examples are as follows: in 1968, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a North Carolina elector initially pledged to Republican Richard Nixon, switched his vote to George Wallace of the American Independent Party; in 1972, Roger MacBride, a Virginia elector for Richard Nixon switched his vote to John Hospers of the Libertarian Party; in 1976, Mike Padden, a Washington elector for Gerald Ford voted for Ronald Reagan; in 1988, Margarat Leach, a West Virginia elector for Michael Dukakis, voted instead for Lloyd Bentsen, an unusual decision to exchange the positions of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates; and in 2000, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a District of Columbia elector for Democrat Albert Gore Jr., cast a blank ballot.

These arbitrary decisions did not affect the outcome in each of those presidential election years. But they all flouted the electoral will of the people.

The fact that such capricious switching is permitted, irrespective of the outcomes of the popular vote results in the states in question, is cause for great concern. What might happen if electors break their pledges to a particular candidate en masse? Is that possible and legally enforceable? The answer appears to be yes.

In this vein, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to envision three or more candidates splitting the electoral tally of votes such that none received the requisite majority of 270 to win the White House.

In that situation, what prevents one of the candidates directing his electors to another candidate, before the formal meeting of the Electors to count and certify the electoral votes occurs in the month following the November election, to allow him to gain the necessary majority of 270 in exchange for policy concessions or worse, a massive cash payment? Would that kind of corrupt transaction be allowed? What element of the current Electoral College system prevents such an unfortunate outcome?

This may not be likely, given our strong two party system, but it is possible. Yet we tolerate the risk of it happening, year after year, because we assume it will never occur. Someday we may regret our indecision to fix what we know is wrong with the Electoral College system.

Twenty-five years ago in the 96th Congress, a majority of the Senate voted 51 to 48 to support abolishing the Electoral College and replace it with direct popular elections. That legislation, S.J. Res. 26, fell short of the necessary two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment, but I am encouraged that more than half the body supported the concept.

A few years before that, the House voted overwhelmingly in the 91st Congress, by a vote of 338 to 70, for the direct popular election of the President. Alas, the effort fell short in the Senate.

I am prepared to press the case for this idea, on a bipartisan basis, through extensive committee deliberations and onto the Senate floor. The time has come for the Senate to reconsider the essential building blocks of our democracy.

Some might claim that offering a constitutional amendment is a political gambit to overcome my own State's weak position in the Electoral College voting system. It is a fact that smaller States, such as South Dakota, Wyoming, and others, maintain disproportionate influence in the process compared to California.

I would respond to that as follows: my approach does equate the vote of a Californian, Rhode Islander and South Dakotan as being equal. But it also means that millions of votes cast for Republican candidates in future presidential races in my home state will have meaning and value. Their votes will count for something.

In the 2000 race, George Bush received over 4.5 million votes in California. That should have counted for something--but it did not. All 54 of California's electoral votes went to Vice President Al Gore.

Given the domination of Democratic presidential candidates in California in the modern era, it is clear that my party would not benefit from a direct popular election in California.

But for me, this is about principle over politics. It is the right thing to do, even if it gives renewed life to Republican presidential candidates in my home State.

As it stands now, California is not a place where Republican and Democratic presidential candidates genuinely compete for votes. They come to California to fill their campaign coffers but take a pass with real voters. That needs to change--for California, yes, but also for New York, Texas, for Utah and for so many other States in the country.

I have tried to understand the counterarguments to a nationwide popular vote. They reflect a desire to empower both regional and rural interests, and deny major population centers from having excessive power. I appreciate the notion that we don't want clusters of cities and particular regions where the greatest numbers of Americans reside, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, to dominate the electoral landscape.

At the same time, a presidential candidate's priorities, record and vision for the country will determine how far he goes in the nominating and general election process. Stitching together a cross section of American voters, who represent different economic and social backgrounds, professions, parts of the country, religious faiths, and so much more holds the key to attaining a winning plurality or majority of votes in presidential races.

I would contend that it is up to the candidates to appeal to the broadest group of Americans but to level the playing field in doing so. In that process each American's vote, regardless of where that person lives in the country, should be counted equally.

Right now, that is just not the case. Our system is not undemocratic, but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Electoral College Abolition Resolution be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order that I may send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, as we all know, the recent Orange Revolution in Ukraine marked a huge victory for the advancement of democracy in the world. The Ukrainian people made clear that they would not stand idle as a corrupt regime sought to deny them their democratic rights. Now that the people of Ukraine have seized control of their destiny, the United States must stand ready to assist them as they do the hard work of consolidating democracy.

The purpose of the amendment is to repeal the so-called and well- known Jackson-Vanik amendment, for it to be terminated with respect to Ukraine. At his appearance yesterday with President Viktor Yushchenko, President Bush pledged to seek the termination of Jackson-Vanik. In a White House statement yesterday, both Governments stated that they support ``immediately ending the application of Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine.'' We should all agree. This 31-year-old legislation is, with respect to Ukraine, now anachronistic and inappropriate. I am pleased to offer this amendment along with Senator DeWine. And I know there will be others.

Specifically, this amendment would authorize the President to terminate the application of Jackson-Vanik, which is title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, to Ukraine. Ukraine would then be eligible to receive permanent normal trade relations tariff status in its trade with the United States. Several Members in the Senate and House have also introduced legislation to terminate Jackson-Vanik, and these bills in the Senate have been pending in the committee since the start of this session. I am hopeful that today the Senate will agree to adopt this amendment.

Beyond any benefits to our bilateral trading relationship, lifting Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine constitutes an important symbol of Ukraine's new democracy and its relationship with the United States. In February, along with three other Senators and six representatives, I went to Kiev, where we met with President Yushchenko, Prime Minister Tymoshenko, and students who led protests in Independence Square. I was struck by the great enthusiasm for democracy and freedom that has taken hold in Ukraine, and I know we all wish the new leaders all the best as they begin the challenge of governing. I pledged to them that we would work toward the lifting of Jackson-Vanik on Ukraine, and today I am happy to move toward that end.

Tomorrow, President Yushchenko will address a joint session of Congress, an honor which we bestow on few foreign leaders. As we have the privilege of welcoming this true hero of democracy, I can think of no better gesture than today terminating the anachronistic and inappropriate Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Ukraine.

I note the presence of my most respected colleague, Senator Lugar, who has gained the respect and appreciation of all of us with his knowledge and expertise on issues of national security and foreign affairs and his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee. I hope he would see his way clear to have a look at this amendment, and I would obviously seek his support.

Mr. President, we who follow events in that part of the world were thrilled at the Orange Revolution. We saw a flawed election that was repudiated by the people of Ukraine in a peaceful manner. It was one of the remarkable events in that part of the world.

I remind my colleagues that Ukraine is a very pivotal and important country in its own right, one with a tragic history of bloodshed and sacrifice but also, when its geostrategic location is considered, a very important part of the world. Dr. Henry Kissinger once was quoted as saying: Russia with Ukraine is a Western power, without Ukraine is an Eastern power.

I fully agree with our President's stated commitment yesterday for repeal of Jackson-Vanik as far as Ukraine is concerned.

Jackson-Vanik was a very incredibly important tool in asserting our support and advocacy for human rights in then-Iron-Curtain countries. I think it is

very clear that neither Senator Jackson nor Congressman Vanik envisioned this anachronistic provision to apply to a country that is now on the verge of a functioning democracy in a free and exuberant nation.

I am told by my staff that somehow the chairman of the Finance Committee, or probably more likely one of his zealous staffers, has said they would object to this provision because of the fact there are certain problems with intellectual property or other reasons. I would hope that assertion of jurisdiction, or reluctance to approve of this, particularly in light of this particular moment, would disappear in light of the priorities that this repeal of Jackson-Vanik would send as a sign of strong support and advocacy for democracy and process of an open and free society which is obviously taking place in Ukraine.

So if there is a problem that we have with Ukraine, I would think the President of the United States would have articulated those views in his meetings with President Yushchenko yesterday. And if the President had a problem, he certainly would not have come out after the meeting and advocated the repeal of Jackson-Vanik.

Not many Americans even know what Jackson-Vanik is. But a whole lot of people in these countries that this law still applies to are very aware of it. I think it would not only be appropriate to send a signal with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik as far as Ukraine is concerned, but I think it would be a slap in the face to the new Ukrainian Government and people because some committee of the Senate asserted its jurisdiction at a time when we should be providing as much encouragement as we can to the process of democracy and freedom, which has exhilarated all of us as we watched this marvelous transformation take place.

So I urge adoption of the amendment. I hope we can dispose of the amendment today. If the chairman of the Finance Committee or any of his staff would like to debate this issue, I would be more than happy to engage in that at their convenience and have a recorded vote, which I think would carry overwhelmingly in the Senate.

I again recognize the leadership and dedicated hard work on this legislation by our distinguished and respected chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2006 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to

introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

This is the same amendment that I have introduced every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my tenure in Congress, during good economic times and bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.

Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that: ``. . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.''

I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.

Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the governments demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.

More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2004, the Federal Government spent more than $321 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined.

We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently almost $8 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments.

Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much.

We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will greatly enhance Federal participation in financing and improving our Nation's ferry transportation system.

Today I again introduce the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act, or Ferry-TEA. I am proud to have Senators Collins, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Corzine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Snowe, and Stevens as original cosponsors. This bill will provide significantly more resources to State governments, public ferry systems, and public entities responsible for developing facilities for ferries.

Specifically, the bill would: provide $150 million a year for the Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program. This is approximately four times the $38 million a year that is currently being provided under this program; add ``ferry maintenance facilities'' to the list of allowable use of funds under this program; add ``ferries'' to the Clean Fuels Program; establish a Ferry Joint Program Office to coordinate federal programs affecting ferry boat and ferry facility construction, maintenance, and operations and to promote ferry service as a component of the nation's transportation system; establish an information database on ferry systems, routes, vessels, passengers and vehicles carried; and establish an institute for ferries to conduct R&D, conduct training programs, encourage collaborative efforts to promote ferry service, and preserve historical information. This will parallel institutes that now exist for highways, transit, and rail.

Currently, the Federal investment in ferries is only one-tenth of one percent of the total Surface Transportation Program. There is virtually no coordination at the federal level to encourage and promote ferries as there are for other modes of transportation.

We need better coordinated ferry services because it's the sole means of surface transportation in many areas of the country, including, Hawaii, Alaska and my home State of Washington.

Ferries are also the preferred, and the only feasible, method of commuting from home to work in places like Washington State, New York/ New Jersey, North Carolina, Hawaii and Alaska.

Finally, in many States like my home State of Washington they are an important part of the tourism industry and represent a part of our cultural identity.

The symbol of ferries moving people and vehicles on the waterways of the Puget Sound is as much a part of our cultural identity as computers, coffee, commercial aircraft and the Washington Apple.

Ferry use is growing.

In Washington State our ferry system--the Nation's largest-- transports approximately 26 million passengers each year and carries 11 million vehicles. This is more passengers in my one state than Amtrak transports on a yearly basis nationwide.

Other systems that serve New York/New Jersey, North Carolina, San Francisco, and Alaska also have significant numbers of passengers using the ferries.

The Nation's six largest ferry systems recently carried 73 million people and 13 million vehicles in just one year.

The growth projection for ferry use is very high. For these larger systems, it is projected that by 2009 there will be a 14-percent increase in passengers and a 17-percent increase in vehicles being carried by ferries compared to 2002.

In San Francisco, that projection is a 46-percent increase.

It is clear that many people are using ferries and more will be using them in the future.

This is all with very little help from the Federal Government.

Our investment in ferries pails in comparison to the federal investments in highways and other forms of mass transit.

Our bill would provide the needed funding for these growing systems for new ferry boat construction, for ferry facilities and terminals, and for maintenance facilities.

The bill also would make ferries eligible under the Clean Fuels Program.

Like busses, ferries are a form of mass transit that is environmentally cleaner than mass use of cars and trucks. Making them eligible for the Clean Fuels Program will encourage boat makers to design cleaner and more efficient vessels in the future. This will make ferry travel an even more environmentally friendly means of transportation than it already is today.

During the 108th Congress, I, with the help of several of my colleagues, was able to attach an amendment to the surface transportation reauthorization bill--SAFETEA. That amendment would have increased the funding for the Ferry Boat Discretionary Program from $38 million per year to $120 million per year and make other changes.

I thank Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Bond, and Senators Jeffords and Reid for working with us to include that important amendment.

As we again move to the Senate consideration of the reauthorization bill in the near future, I look forward to working with my cosponsors and the leaders of the Committee, which now includes Senator Baucus, to see all the elements of Ferry-TEA is included in the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.