Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Specter and Harkin to introduce The Gynecological Cancer Education and Awareness Act of 2005, also known as Johanna's Law. This important legislation authorizes a national gynecologic cancer early detection and awareness campaign for women and their providers. This bill is named in honor of Johanna Silver Gordon who died from ovarian cancer and whose sister, Sheryl Silver, founded Johanna's Law Alliance for Women's Cancer Awareness. We thank Ms. Silver for her courage and her persistent efforts to turn her sister's tragedy into a crusade to raise awareness and prevent needless suffering and death from gynecologic cancers for other women.

Nearly 80,000 American women are diagnosed with gynecologic cancers each year. Tragically, 29,000 of them die from this disease. We know that early detection is the key to successful treatment of all gynecologic cancers, and we have made great strides at reducing rates of cervical cancer with wide-spread use of Pap screening tests. Yet, we have not been able to replicate this success with uterine cancer and ovarian cancer, for which effective and general screening methods do not exist. For ovarian cancer, which is the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers, in addition to lack of screening tests, doctors and researchers have not identified effective diagnostic and treatments. Seventy percent of all new diagnoses of ovarian cancer take place after this cancer has progressed beyond its earliest and most survivable stage.

Given these challenges, knowing the symptoms of gynecologic cancers, which can mimic GI illnesses, menopause or perimenopause, is key to early diagnosis. The 5-year survival rates for the most common gynecologic cancers are 90 percent when diagnosed early, but drop to 50 percent for cancers diagnosed later.

Johanna's Law will promote early detection and awareness through a National Public Awareness Campaign conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services. Women will be given written materials that provide information about gynecologic cancers, and Public Service Announcements will be developed to encourage women to talk to their doctors about gynecologic cancer. The Department will also give grants for demonstration projects to local and national non-profit organizations to identify the best ways to reach and educate women about these cancers, particularly those women who are high risk.

Johanna's Law will make sure that women and doctors get the information they need to help them recognize early symptoms of gynecologic cancers, so that women can be diagnosed and treated earlier when their cancers are treatable. I urge my colleagues to work to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. President, let me begin my statement today by outlining what I think this debate is not about.

I do not believe this debate is about Mr. Bolton being rude on occasion. This debate is not about Mr. Bolton being blunt. The debate is not about Mr. Bolton occasionally losing his temper.

As the distinguished Senator from Arizona just noted, if this is the criteria, many of us in the U.S. Senate would not be qualified to serve in a position that requires confirmation. Almost all of us lose our cool from time to time and say things we come to regret later. Let me add, I don't think this debate is about whether Mr. Bolton is an intelligent man.

These are not the issues at the heart of the strong bipartisan objections that have been voiced on this nomination.

The crux of the objections is very specific, very credible allegations that Mr. Bolton sought to shade intelligence and sideline career intelligence analysts who did not agree with his policy views. This is the core of the bipartisan objections to this nomination.

Over and over again, we heard from a range of career officials and Bush administration appointees that Mr. Bolton sought to massage intelligence to fit an ideological bias. Let me emphasize, these are objections coming forward from Bush appointees.

In addition, we have 102 former ambassadors and senior diplomats who oppose Bolton--from the Nixon administration, the Ford administration, and

that bastion of fuzzy-headed liberalism, the Reagan administration.

In an environment where reliable intelligence is one of the best tools we have to keep us safe, we must heed the lessons from the Iraq war: Intelligence must never be shaped to fit policy views. Dissent within the intelligence community should not be muzzled or suppressed; it should be respected and encouraged.

The United States Senate should be sending a clear, unequivocal statement to our intelligence officers: We want you to play it straight and call it like you see it--even if it is something we do not want to hear.

I am afraid that by voting to confirm Mr. Bolton, we will fail to send that critical message.

Now, I believe the President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when appointing senior members of his team. To that end, I have supported a number of the President's choices for top foreign policy positions, including Secretary Rice; Robert Zoellick, to be her deputy; and Nick Burns, to fill the third-ranking position at the State Department.

I think we should provide some deference to the President. The executive branch is primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations of our foreign policy.

At the same time, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and to consent. This is a responsibility I take very seriously.

And so, because of Mr. Bolton's consistent breach of the line between practicing politics and analyzing intelligence--that is pivotal to our national security--I intend to vote ``no'' on the nomination of John Bolton to be our representative to the United Nations.

I agree with much of what my colleagues have said about the problems with Mr. Bolton's qualifications to serve in this position. But I would like to focus on one issue that I believe has not been covered in great detail--Mr. Bolton's performance in his current job.

It has been suggested we should overlook the troubling aspects of Mr. Bolton's record--the fact that he appears to have attempted to manipulate intelligence data; the fact he does not appear to have been entirely forthcoming before the Foreign Relations Committee; and the fact we still cannot get basic information from the State Department on his nomination--for one reason: because Mr. Bolton is so competent for the job. I have heard this argument repeatedly from the other side of the aisle.

I am baffled by this reasoning. I am stupefied by the suggestion that Mr. Bolton is such an excellent choice for the job, so uniquely qualified for this job, that we should just ignore all of these other problems.

When I look at the record of Mr. Bolton during the last 4 years as the top arms control and nonproliferation official at the State Department, I am not impressed. Let's look at his track record.

On North Korea, the approach that has been advocated by both Mr. Bolton and this administration has simply not worked. Under Mr. Bolton's watch, there are no longer international inspectors and cameras at any site in North Korea. The North Koreans have withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We now believe North Korea has developed material for six to eight nuclear weapons.

When North Korea has one or two nuclear weapons, the situation is critical. They can test one weapon, and hold one weapon. When it has six to eight, the situation is terminal. North Korea can now test a weapon, hold a couple, and sell the rest. And we know that North Korea will do virtually anything for the money.

Another area Mr. Bolton was responsible for is the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a critical tool for helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states, which could ultimately fall into the hands of terrorist organizations.

President Bush recognized the importance of the NPT and pledged to strengthen this treaty in a 2004 speech at the National Defense University. A week later, Mr. Bolton promised to do the same.

What has happened since? Virtually nothing. The administration has made very little progress on this issue, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference currently underway is not going well.

An article from MSNBC reports:

The United States has been losing control of the

conference's agenda this week to Iran and other countries, a

potentially serious setback to U.S. efforts to isolate

Tehran.

Where has Mr. Bolton been throughout this process?

According to the same article:

[S]ince last fall Bolton, Mr. Bush's embattled nominee to

be America's ambassador to the United Nations, has

aggressively lobbied for a senior job in the second Bush

administration. During that time Mr. Bolton did almost no

diplomatic groundwork for the NPT conference . . . officials

say. Everyone knew the conference was coming, and that it

would be contentious, says a former senior Bush official, but

Bolton stopped all diplomacy on this six months ago.

In other words, Mr. Bolton was more interested in lobbying for the U.N. job than doing the tough groundwork necessary for a successful review conference.

Let's turn to Iran--another issue on which Mr. Bolton should have been working to formulate a coherent, workable administration strategy. Instead, the administration's policy has been all over the map. In a hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee last week, a senior State Department official described the latest iteration of the Administration's policy as a ``patient policy.''

I would say the policy has been less about patience and more about paralysis--a dangerous situation for a nation such as Iran that is developing nuclear weapons, is a state sponsor of terrorism, and is meddling in Iraq.

Perhaps this paralysis and incoherence is best illustrated by the fact that since 2001, the administration has tried--to my knowledge, without success--to formulate a Presidential Directive on Iran. As the top non-proliferation official at the State Department, Mr. Bolton should have been doing more to shape a workable policy instead of letting it drift dangerously along for the last 4 years.

Mr. President, I know my time is running short, so let me conclude with a couple of simple points.

Two examples are frequently cited by Mr. Bolton and his supporters as evidence of his success and competence in his current position: Libya and the Proliferation Security Initiative. During his confirmation hearings, Mr. Bolton touted these successes over and over again.

Now, I agree with Mr. Bolton that we have made important progress on these issues. But reports suggest that the Libya deal was struck in spite of Mr. Bolton, not because of him. In fact, Mr. Bolton was sidelined from the negotiations by the White House. And, the British Government specifically asked that Mr. Bolton not play a role in this process.

I quote from an MSNBC article that specifically addresses this issue:

Bolton, for instance, often takes and is given credit for

the administration's Proliferation Security Initiative, an

agreement to interdict suspected WMD shipments on the high

seas, and the deal to dismantle Libya's nuclear program, a

deal that Bolton, by the way, had sought to block. But [a]

former senior Bush official . . . says that, in fact,

Bolton's successor, Robert Joseph deserves most of the credit

for these achievements. This official adds that it was Joseph

who was in charge of counterproliferation at the NSC [and]

who had to pitch in when Bolton fumbled preparations for the

NPT conference as well.

Now, here is my point: If there was clear evidence that Mr. Bolton is a terrific diplomat, maybe I could understand how some in the Senate could overlook what I consider to be a mountain of evidence concerning his misuse of intelligence and say: You know what, this guy is such a capable administrator and diplomat, we need him to reform the United Nations.

I would still believe that the misuse of intelligence, in and of itself, disqualifies Mr. Bolton from the job, but at least I could understand why some people would draw such a conclusion.

But the record indicates that in his current job he has not had much success, which leads me to ask: Why is it we are so confident this is the person who is going to lead reform in the United Nations?

The distinguished Senator from Arizona is exactly right, we need reform in the United Nations. It is inexcusable some of the things that go on up there.

But as a consequence of Mr. Bolton's diminished credibility and stature, I

think he is exactly the opposite of what we need at the United Nations. Countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma, and others that do not want to see reform take place at the UN, are going to be able to dismiss our efforts at reform by saying: Mr. Bolton is a U.N. basher, someone who is ideologically opposed to the existence of the U.N.--thereby using Mr. Bolton's own words and lack of credibility as a shield to prevent the very reforms that need to take place.

Moreover, I have yet to hear a comprehensive plan from Mr. Bolton or the administration for U.N. reform.

So let me close by saying this: When the Foreign Relations Committee considered Mr. Bolton's nomination, I invoked the memory of Adlai Stevenson, a great citizen of the State of Illinois. Stevenson had the credibility, the temperament, and the diplomatic skill to guide the United States through some of the worst, most difficult times at the United Nations--especially the Cuban missile crisis.

During this crisis, we were able to isolate the Soviets because of the stature and integrity of our permanent representative to the United Nations.

Given the issues that have surfaced surrounding Mr. Bolton's nomination, I simply ask my colleagues this: If a crisis were to occur with North Korea or Iran, are we sure the integrity and credibility of Mr. Bolton would command the respect of the rest of the world? Would Mr. Bolton, like Adlai Stevenson, be able to convince the world that our intelligence and our policies are right and true? Would Mr. Bolton be able to isolate our enemies and build a coalition that would ultimately make our troops safer and our mission easier?

I believe the answer is no. There are some wonderful, capable, tough, conservative, reform-minded Republican diplomats who are well qualified for this task and would easily be confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Bolton is not one of them.

I would urge that the other side of the aisle seriously consider their position on this nomination. I hope we can muster the votes to send this nomination back to the President. Let's start afresh. I know we can do better.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, we have been spending a considerable amount of time in this body debating the so-called nuclear option. Today I want to spend a little bit of time talking about an issue that poses a more significant threat to our Republic.

Throughout the last half of the 20th century, one nation more than any other on the face of the Earth, defined and shaped the threats posed to the United States. This nation, of course, was the Soviet Union and its successor state, Russia.

While many have turned their attention to China or other parts of the world, I believe the most important threat to the security of the United States continues to lie within the borders of the former Soviet Union in the form of stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and materials.

We are in a race against time to prevent these weapons from getting in the hands of international terrorist organizations or rogue states. The path to this potential disaster is easier than anyone could imagine. There are a number of potential sources of fissile material in the former Soviet Union in sites that are poorly secured. The material is compact, easy to hide, and hard to track. Weapons designs can be easily found on the Internet.

Today, some weapons experts believe that terrorist organizations will have enough fissile material to build a nuclear bomb in the next 10 years--that is right, 10 years.

I rise today to instill a sense of urgency in the Senate. I rise today to ask how are we going to deal with this threat tomorrow, a year from now, a decade from now?

The President has just completed an international trip that included a visit to Russia. I commend him for taking this trip and making our relationship with Russia a priority.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union produced nearly 2,000 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for use in weapons that could destroy the world several times over. To give an idea of just how much this is, it takes only 5 to 10 kilograms of plutonium to build a nuclear weapon that could kill the entire population of St. Louis. For decades, strategic deterrence, our alliances, and the balance of power with the Soviet Union ensured the relative safety of these weapons and materials.

With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, all this has changed. Key institutions within the Soviet national security apparatus have crumbled, exposing dangerous gaps in the security of nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and fissile material.

Regional powers felt fewer constraints to develop nuclear weapons. Rogue states accelerated weapons programs.

And while this was happening, international terrorist organizations who are aggressively seeking nuclear weapons gained strength and momentum.

Now, thanks to the leadership of former Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar in creating the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program at the Department of Defense, there is no question that we have made some great progress in securing these weapons.

These same two leaders continue to work tirelessly on this issue to this day--Senator Nunn, through the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Senator Lugar, through his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee.

The situation in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union is drastically different than it was in 1991 or even 1996 or 2001. But, the threat is still extremely dangerous and extremely real.

In March of this year, a senior Russian commander concluded that 39 of 46 key Russian weapons facilities had serious security shortcomings. Many Russian nuclear research sites frequently have doors propped open, security sensors turned off, and guards patrolling without ammunition in their weapons.

Meanwhile, the security situation outside of Russia continues to be of grave concern. Fanatical terrorist organizations who want these weapons continue to search every corner of the Earth resorting to virtually any means necessary. The nuclear programs of nations such as Iran and North Korea threaten to destabilize key regions of the world. We are still learning about the tremendous damage caused by A.Q. Khan, the rogue Pakistani weapons scientist.

Looking back over the past decade and a half, it is clear that we could and should have done more.

So as the President returns from his trip to Russia, we should be thinking--on a bipartisan basis--about the critical issues that can guide us in the future to ensure that there are no more missed opportunities.

The first question we should be thinking about is what is the future of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program? What is our plan? I believe the administration must spend more time working with Congress to chart out a roadmap and a strategic vision of the program.

There are two things the President can do to move on this issue. First, in the National Security Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction of 2002, the administration said the National Security Council would prepare a 5-year governmentwide strategy by March of 2003. To my knowledge, this has not been completed. In addition, Congress required the administration to submit an interagency coordination plan on how to more effectively deal with nonproliferation issues. This plan is due at the end of this month.

Completing these plans will help the United States better address critical day-to-day issues such as liability, resource allocation, and timetables. Having a better strategic vision will also help us work more efficiently and effectively with other international donors who have become increasingly involved and are making significant contributions to these efforts. This is very important, as the contribution of other donors can help us make up valuable lost time.

Mr. President, my second question concerns the U.S.-Russian relationship. Where is this relationship heading? Will Russia be an adversary, a partner, or something in between?

We do not ask these questions simply because we are interested in being nice and want only to get along with the Russians. We have to ask these questions because they directly impact our progress towards securing and destroying stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials.

In the last few years, we have seen some disturbing trends in Russia: the rapid deterioration of democracy and the rule of law, bizarre and troubling statements from President Putin about the fall of the Soviet Union, the abuses that have taken place in Chechnya, and Russian meddling in the former Soviet Union--from the Baltics to the Ukraine to Georgia.

The Russians must understand that their actions on some of these issues are entirely unacceptable.

At the same time, I believe we have to do a better job of working with the Russians to make sure they are moving in the right direction. This starts by being thoughtful and consistent about what we say and what we do. Tone matters.

Some of the statements by our own officials have been confusing, contradictory, and problematic. At times I have been left scratching my head about what exactly our policy is and how administration statements square with this policy.

Another issue is the level of sustained engagement with Russia. I am glad the President and Secretary of State have made several trips to Russia, but as these trips are only a few days every year or so this is only one aspect of the relationship.

An additional component, which has suffered in recent years, is our foreign assistance programs to Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. These programs are absolutely essential in maintaining our engagement with Russia. These programs are not giveaways. They are programs that advance U.S. interests by strengthening Russian democracy and civil society, enhancing economic development and dealing with international health issues--in addition to curbing the nonproliferation threat.

At a time when these programs are desperately needed, their budgets have been cut dramatically. At a time when we should be doing more to engage and shape the future of Russia, we seem to be doing the exact opposite.

The nonproliferation threat does not exist in a vacuum. The issue I just mentioned, along with other important issues such as our own strategic nuclear arsenal, must be considered as we move forward.

Finally, Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to consider how our relationship with Russia, and our efforts to secure and destroy weapons and materials inside the former Soviet Union, fits in with our broader nonproliferation goals.

Russia is a major player in the two biggest proliferation challenges we currently face--Iran and North Korea. Russia's dangerous involvement with Iran's nuclear program has been well documented, and there is no question their actions will be pivotal if the President is to successfully resolve this deteriorating situation.

The Russians are also an important voice in trying to make progress on the deteriorating situation in North Korea. The Russian city of Vladivostok is

home to 590,000 people and is very close to the North Korean border, putting the Russians smack in the middle of the crisis that we need to resolve.

In addition to all this, Russia holds a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations, which could consider Iranian and North Korean issues in the very near future.

Developing bilateral and multilateral strategies that deal with Russia's role in these growing crises will be extremely important, both in terms of resolving these crises, advancing our non-proliferation goals within the former Soviet Union, and our long-term relationship with Russia.

I realize that, at this time, none of us have all the answers to these extraordinarily difficult questions. But if we hope to successfully fight terror and avoid disaster before it arrives at our shores, we have to start finding these answers. We have a lot of work to do.

I believe it is worth putting in place a process, one that involves senior administration officials, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, as well as retired senior military officers and diplomats, in an effort to dramatically improve progress on these issues.

I am interested in hearing from the President about his trip. I am also interested in hearing if he believes that an idea similar to the one I put forward is worth considering.

Delay is not an option. We need to start making more progress on this issue today. I urge my colleagues to act.

Despite all the distractions we have had with the so-called nuclear option and judicial nominations, this is literally a matter of life and death. I hope we start paying more attention to it in this Senate Chamber and in the debates that are going to be coming in the coming months.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the situation of Afro-Latinos throughout Latin America, in the hopes that we can encourage more action on this issue. From Colombia to Brazil to the Dominican Republic to Ecuador, persons of African descent continue to experience racial discrimination and remain among the poorest and most marginalized groups in the entire region. While recent positive steps have been taken in some areas--for example, giving land titles to Afro-Colombians and passing explicit anti-discrimination legislation in Brazil--much work still needs to be done to ensure that this is the beginning of an ongoing process of reform, not the end.

In places where civil conflict has taken hold, Afro-Latinos are much more likely to become victims of violence or refugees in their own countries. In many areas, Afro-Latinos are also subject to aggression by local police forces at far greater rates than those perceived to be white. Access to health services is another serious concern, and recent studies have shown that Afro-Latino communities are at greater risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

In the last Congress, there was not one mention in the Senate of the millions of Afro-Latinos who continue to experience this widespread discrimination and socioeconomic marginalization. Now is the time for more action on this issue, not less. Emerging civil society groups are growing stronger throughout many countries in Latin America, and this growth should be encouraged as it presents important opportunities for partnerships and collaboration. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House on this critical concern in the coming months, and I believe that together we can and will make a difference.

Mr. President, we have all heard from folks back home about the high price of gasoline. When you pull into a gas station to fill up your tank, you're now paying some of the highest prices of all time.

This amendment is designed to do something about that--by promoting a choice at the pump that will allow consumers to choose a fuel that today is 50 cents per gallon cheaper than regular gasoline.

That's why I would like to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member of the Committee, Senator Baucus, for their advocacy of this amendment. I also want to thank the manager of the transportation bill, Chairman Inhofe, for working with us on this proposal. These Senate leaders are all committed to addressing high gas prices, and their work on this amendment is an example of that commitment.

I would like to thank my fellow authors of this amendment, Senator Talent, as well as my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for their hard work in getting this provision passed. And I thank the cosponsors of this amendment, also longtime supporters of ethanol, Senators Lugar,

Harkin, Bayh, Coleman, Salazar, Dayton, and Nelson of Nebraska.

And of course, I would like to thank the excellent staff work of Elizabeth Paris, Matt Jones, and Russ Sullivan on behalf of this provision.

I am sure many of us in this Chamber, and many watching these proceedings, would jump at the chance to fill our cars and trucks with fuel that is 50 cents cheaper than current prices. What many consumers may not know is that that option is available today. It is known as E- 85, a fuel comprised of 85 percent ethanol. And I suspect most Americans would agree that a fuel made of 85 percent Midwestern corn is a lot more desirable than one made from 100 percent Middle Eastern oil.

Right now, there are millions of cars and trucks that can run on E- 85. They are known as ``flexible fuel vehicles,'' and the auto industry is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year. These cars and trucks aren't more expensive to operate than regular cars--in fact, for just a one-hundred-dollar adjustment, even regular cars could run on E- 85. And if E-85 is good enough for the Indianapolis 500--which just announced their cars will run on this fuel--then you can be sure that E-85 will work great in a flexible fuel vehicle.

The only problem now is our short supply of E-85 fuel stations. While there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, only about 400 offer E-85.

The amendment adopted by the Senate today addresses this problem by providing a tax credit to encourage the installation of more E-85 fuel pumps at your local gas station. Its enactment will not only give motorists another option at the pump, it will also send a clear message that the U.S. Senate is serious about reducing our country's dangerous dependence on imported oil.

Again, I thank my colleagues who have worked to adopt this amendment to help make America energy independent.

Mr. President, like my distinguished colleagues from Arkansas and from Mississippi, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Virginia. I strongly urge my colleagues to preserve the seatbelt program as it is written in the Transportation reauthorization bill.

This provision in the underlying bill gives States that pass primarily seatbelt laws a one-time incentive grant from that State's annual traffic safety grant apportionment. The purpose of this incentive is to encourage States to take specific action, passage of a primary seatbelt law that will save more lives.

As it so happens, my State of Illinois passed a primary seatbelt law in response to this incentive. I know we did it in response to these incentives because I was the chief sponsor of passage of the primary seatbelt law.

The same thing happened in Delaware. The same thing happened in Tennessee. You know what. It works, and it works faster and cheaper than any other method, in terms of ensuring that people wear safety belts and save lives.

It is amazing we have to keep saying this, but seatbelts save lives and primary seatbelt laws save more lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration predicts if every State enacted primary seatbelt laws, more than 1,000 lives could be saved each year and 17,000 injuries could be prevented. Seatbelt use is 11 percentage points higher in States with primary enforcement laws than in those States where laws provide for secondary enforcement. And States changing from

secondary to primary enforcement have seen 10 to 15 percentage point increases in usage.

Beyond the facts and statistics, this is an issue that makes sense. We should not have to just hope people wear seatbelts, just as we should not have to hope they obey speed limits or hope they stop at red lights. We should do what we can to make sure people will wear seatbelts that will keep them alive. We teach our children to wear seatbelts when they get into a car and we all hope they listen to mom and dad and do it when we are not there, but wouldn't we feel better if we knew our laws in our communities were helping to make that happen? Doesn't it makes sense for the Federal Government to maintain a consistent message on seatbelt use, not through a mandate but through a simple incentive?

The National Safe Kids Campaign thinks so. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers thinks so. They endorse and prefer the Federal incentive as written in the underlying bill.

Finally, a Federal incentive is also a Federal commitment. When the Federal Government makes a commitment and States respond accordingly, then the Federal Government needs to keep its word. One of the points that was raised by Senator Allen in sponsoring this amendment was that, in Virginia at least, there seems to be some concern that primary seatbelt enforcement would result potentially in an increase in racial profiling in Virginia.

As somebody whose community on the south side of Chicago is fairly familiar with racial profiling, and who hears anecdotes each day from African-American drivers who believe they may have been profiled, I am certainly sensitive to Senator Allen's point. As it turns out, though, part of the way we were able to solve this in Illinois was to couple a primary seatbelt enforcement law with a racial profiling law that would ensure we were keeping track as to how traffic enforcement was taking place and to make certain it was being done in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

This was the bargain that was struck at the local level: the notion that we would have a primary seatbelt law enforced; we would also have a data collection bill that would allow us to track and make sure our traffic laws are being applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

That deal that was struck in Illinois was premised on the notion that we would be getting these Federal incentives. It is not appropriate for the Federal Government to now pull the rug out from under States such as Illinois that have done the right thing. It is appropriate, instead, for us to keep our word, maintain our commitments, and make sure we continue to incentivize a law that everybody knows, in fact, saves the lives of our citizens.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, recently, more 1,200 students from across the United States visited Washington, DC to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I applaud the class from Maine Township High School in Park Ridge that skillfully represented the great State of Illinois in this prestigious national event. Through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, these outstanding students won the statewide competition and made Illinois proud in the national competition here in our Nation's capitol.

Congratulations to Nicole Calabrese, Carly Calkins, Emily Cottrell, Keith Dent, Katie Eichstaedt, Alyssa Engle,

Katie Funkhouser, Kathryn Futris, Jacqueline Heffernan, Kevin Kane, Erin Keating, Maddie Kiem, Dan Leung, Mike Mangialardi, Kelly McKenna, Ryan Morrisroe, Allison Mueller, Jessica Newton, James Pikul, Elizabeth Poli, Ashley Rezaeizadeh, Alex Schallmo, Jimmy Skuros, Ryan Stegink, Dan Widing, Meredith Wisniewski, and their teacher Dan States. I commend each and everyone of you for your hard work.

While in Washington, these students participated in a 3-day academic competition that simulated a congressional hearing in which they ``testified'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and had opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues.

I wish these students the best of luck in their future endeavors and applaud their outstanding achievement.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives to defend ours. They are completing a mission they did not ask for and, in Iraq, a mission that is longer and more dangerous than they were ever told. Yet amid roadside explosions, insurgent attacks, and the loss of some of their closest friends, they wake up each day and do their jobs. They wake up each day and do whatever it takes to leave a democratic Iraq for a free Iraqi people.

This bill is a way for us to support these efforts. With its passage, I sincerely hope our troops will receive all the support and all the equipment they need to do their job. With its passage, I hope we do not hear any more stories about troops driving convoys with unarmored humvees, or about troops going into battle with armor their parents had to send them from home for their birthday. And I sincerely hope this money will be used to train more Iraqis to secure their own country so we can bring home our young people safe and secure.

I particularly thank the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for working with me on several other emergency spending needs.

I say to Senator Cochran, I appreciate that this bill provides $25 million for the prevention of the avian flu. As

some of you may have read, the number of cases in Southeast Asia is increasing, and there is serious concern that this virus could mutate and jump from continent to continent, potentially causing a pandemic that could kill millions of people. We have to work proactively to prevent such a pandemic, and I appreciate the support from the committee chairman as well as the administration on this issue.

Also included in the bill is an amendment I sponsored with my friend from South Carolina, Senator Graham. This amendment will ensure that our injured service members who remain under medical care but are no longer hospitalized will not have to pay for their meals while receiving therapy. I thank the graciousness of Senator Cochran for adopting that amendment on the floor without debate.

I also joined with Senator Durbin to address the security needs of our judiciary. As some of my colleagues know, a Federal judge in Illinois recently suffered a tragic loss, the murder of her mother and her husband. This bill provides necessary funding for the U.S. Marshal Service to step up its security for our Federal judges.

I commend all those who have been involved, including the chairman, for crafting a number of important measures in this bill. I wish that I could, without any further statement, simply say how proud I am of our troops and move on with the supplemental. Unfortunately, this bill also includes some immigration provisions, known as REAL ID, that cause me enormous concern. Although I will certainly vote for the conference report because of the good measures I have already discussed, it is important to state for the record my serious reservations about REAL

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the budget resolution. I think that the budget process is one of those issues that doesn't translate too well outside of Washington. Most Americans know it involves a lot of fighting over a lot of numbers, but other than that what goes on here is largely obscured from public view.

Sometimes I think that is why Washington gets away with passing a budget like this one.

See, a budget is fundamentally about choices--not just choosing where to allocate funding--but where to place our most important values and priorities. And there are no free lunches here either.

We must choose--do we want to run up our debt with tax cuts and give the bill to our children, or do we want to get our fiscal house back in order? Do we want to hand more corporate tax breaks to companies with record profits while handing our veterans higher health care bills, or do we want to keep our promise to those willing to sacrifice in defense of our freedom?

These are the very real choices a budget asks us to make. And they have equally real consequences on people's lives.

When we cut $10 billion from Medicaid, what does that say to the 53 million Americans--25 million of whom are children--who rely on this program as their only source of health care? The thousands of seniors and kids in Illinois who will be turned away from a doctor's office when they get sick because we chose to end their coverage, what does that say to those Americans?

When we cut out a proposal to increase Pell grants that will send more kids to college, what does that say to the 220,000 who didn't attend last year for the simple reason that they couldn't afford it? What does it say to our kids who will have to compete with kids in India and China for jobs when we cut out proposals to provide new math and science teachers?

When we cut $351 million in funding for veterans' nursing homes and eliminate $100 million in State grants for VA facilities, what does that say to the veterans who have sacrificed for this Nation but who cannot seem to get this Nation to sacrifice anything for them? What does it say to these veterans when we provide only around 100 new employees to deal with a backlog of 480,000 compensation and pension claims that haven't even been looked at yet? And what does it say to the men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country when we are not doing much about the nearly 300,000 veterans who go to sleep without a roof over their heads every single night? What does that say to them? What do we say to them?

Maybe we tell them that the budget process is complicated; that we are in some tough times and have tough decisions to make; that we are not happy about the choices, but we have a huge deficit and no money left to spend.

Or maybe we tell them that we couldn't afford to do anything about these important problems because we chose to give out over $100 billion in tax breaks. $100 billion on top of the trillions in tax cuts we have already given out most of which have gone to those few who already have so much.

These tax cuts have driven us into the deepest debt in America's history and squandered our opportunity to deal with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the true costs of the war in Iraq. And yet when we try to do something fiscally responsible like pass an amendment that forces Congress to pay as it goes, we get rejected by those who want to keep borrowing and spending.

Right now, there are millions of middle-class families who are deeply in debt and struggling to pay the bills. This body couldn't wait to pass a bankruptcy bill to make sure they paid every penny of that debt, and yet it has now maxed out the country's credit card many times over. What does this say to Americans about taking responsibility for themselves?

A budget is about choices, and I believe the choices we have made here are just plain wrong.

In this budget, we should be meeting our responsibilities to our fellow Americans while still paying down the debt so we can meet our responsibilities to our children too. It doesn't have to be either-or-- we can do both as long as we get our priorities in order. Many of us-- Democrats and Republicans--have been trying to do this during the budget process. Unfortunately, the final product does not reflect those efforts. In the future, I hope that both parties can find a way to come together and make sure that America's budget reflects Americans' priorities.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005, or the AVIAN Act.

The Nation is becoming increasingly aware of the very serious threat we face from avian flu. This virus is found primarily in chickens, ducks, and other birds. Despite major efforts to eradicate this virus, the virus has become endemic in poultry and birds in some countries and is spreading rapidly in others. Humans can contract the virus when they come into contact with infected birds, and when this happens, the consequences are often deadly. Of the 88 humans infected with avian influenza in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, only 37 have survived.

Right now, avian flu is thought to only pass from birds to humans. However, doctors and scientists have expressed the very real concern that this virus will mutate into a form that can spread easily from human to human. If this happens, the world could face its next pandemic, which could cause more illness and death than virtually any other natural health threat.

The Nation experienced 3 pandemics in the 20th Century--the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918, the Asian flu pandemic in 1957, and the Hong Kong flu pandemic in 1968. The Spanish flu pandemic was the most severe, causing over 500,000 deaths in the United States and more than 20 million deaths worldwide.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that up to 207,000 Americans could die, and up to 734,000 could be hospitalized during the next pandemic. The costs of the pandemic, including the medical costs and the costs associated with infected Americans being unable to work and dying early, are estimated at between $71 billion and $166.5 billion. These costs do not include the impact of a pandemic on commerce and society. On February 21, 2005, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, discussed the possibility of a pandemic and stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the globe . . . the most important threat that we are facing right now.''

We are in a race against time. The Nation's health officials have made some progress in preparing for pandemic influenza. Yet, we have much work to do. The Department of Health and Human Services has not released its final pandemic preparedness plan nor have about half of the states. A survey by the Association of State and Public Health Laboratory Directors found that 20 percent of States had no State public health laboratory capacity to isolate viruses, and 25 percent reported no ability to subtype influenza isolates.

We know antivirals can prevent flu infection and treat those already infected, but we have not stockpiled enough doses to cover even the high-risk populations. We need more research to improve the effectiveness and the safety of vaccines against avian flu and other strains. Many of our hospital emergency rooms and clinics are already bursting at the seams, and it is unclear how they would care for a dramatically increased influx of patients during a pandemic.

The AVIAN Act is a comprehensive measure to deal with an influenza pandemic by emphasizing domestic and international cooperation and collaboration. It creates a high-level inter-agency policy coordinating committee tasked with creating an integrated plan for the nation, with attention to health, agriculture, commerce, transportation, and international relations. Similarly, states are required to finalize pandemic preparedness plans that address surveillance, medical care, workforce, communication, and maintenance of core public functions. Private health providers and hospitals will

play a critical role in diagnosing and treating their patients for flu, and this bill provides grants to make sure their efforts and information networks are coordinated with those by the state. Health and veterinary officials are encouraged to work with our international partners on all of these initiatives.

This bill provides for a public education and awareness campaign and health professional training for a pandemic. The CDC is tasked with researching communication strategies, and developing and implementing a public, non-commercial, and non-competitive broadcast system. The NIH is required to expand and intensify its research on vaccines, antivirals, and other protective measures. An economics advisory committee is established to assess and make recommendations on how to finance pandemic preparedness, while minimizing its economic impact.

Finally, the AVIAN Act provides for an Institute of Medicine study to study the legal, ethical, and social implications of pandemic influenza. Americans may be asked to isolate themselves, to stay home from work, to share their medical diagnoses, and to take certain medications. All of these actions may be critical in preventing millions of Americans from getting sick, spreading disease, and dying. Yet, we must make sure that we are fully cognizant of how these decisions will affect the rights of every American.

We face a terrible threat from pandemic avian influenza, and we must not squander the opportunity before us to plan and prepare. In endorsing the AVIAN Act, the Trust for America's Health states: ``The avian flu is a real and dangerous threat to the health to our nation and the world. If the virus mutates slightly, we could have a million Americans hit by the first wave of a pandemic.''

The time to act is now, and I urge my colleagues to join me and pass the AVIAN Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005, or the AVIAN Act.

The Nation is becoming increasingly aware of the very serious threat we face from avian flu. This virus is found primarily in chickens, ducks, and other birds. Despite major efforts to eradicate this virus, the virus has become endemic in poultry and birds in some countries and is spreading rapidly in others. Humans can contract the virus when they come into contact with infected birds, and when this happens, the consequences are often deadly. Of the 88 humans infected with avian influenza in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, only 37 have survived.

Right now, avian flu is thought to only pass from birds to humans. However, doctors and scientists have expressed the very real concern that this virus will mutate into a form that can spread easily from human to human. If this happens, the world could face its next pandemic, which could cause more illness and death than virtually any other natural health threat.

The Nation experienced 3 pandemics in the 20th Century--the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918, the Asian flu pandemic in 1957, and the Hong Kong flu pandemic in 1968. The Spanish flu pandemic was the most severe, causing over 500,000 deaths in the United States and more than 20 million deaths worldwide.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that up to 207,000 Americans could die, and up to 734,000 could be hospitalized during the next pandemic. The costs of the pandemic, including the medical costs and the costs associated with infected Americans being unable to work and dying early, are estimated at between $71 billion and $166.5 billion. These costs do not include the impact of a pandemic on commerce and society. On February 21, 2005, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, discussed the possibility of a pandemic and stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the globe . . . the most important threat that we are facing right now.''

We are in a race against time. The Nation's health officials have made some progress in preparing for pandemic influenza. Yet, we have much work to do. The Department of Health and Human Services has not released its final pandemic preparedness plan nor have about half of the states. A survey by the Association of State and Public Health Laboratory Directors found that 20 percent of States had no State public health laboratory capacity to isolate viruses, and 25 percent reported no ability to subtype influenza isolates.

We know antivirals can prevent flu infection and treat those already infected, but we have not stockpiled enough doses to cover even the high-risk populations. We need more research to improve the effectiveness and the safety of vaccines against avian flu and other strains. Many of our hospital emergency rooms and clinics are already bursting at the seams, and it is unclear how they would care for a dramatically increased influx of patients during a pandemic.

The AVIAN Act is a comprehensive measure to deal with an influenza pandemic by emphasizing domestic and international cooperation and collaboration. It creates a high-level inter-agency policy coordinating committee tasked with creating an integrated plan for the nation, with attention to health, agriculture, commerce, transportation, and international relations. Similarly, states are required to finalize pandemic preparedness plans that address surveillance, medical care, workforce, communication, and maintenance of core public functions. Private health providers and hospitals will

play a critical role in diagnosing and treating their patients for flu, and this bill provides grants to make sure their efforts and information networks are coordinated with those by the state. Health and veterinary officials are encouraged to work with our international partners on all of these initiatives.

This bill provides for a public education and awareness campaign and health professional training for a pandemic. The CDC is tasked with researching communication strategies, and developing and implementing a public, non-commercial, and non-competitive broadcast system. The NIH is required to expand and intensify its research on vaccines, antivirals, and other protective measures. An economics advisory committee is established to assess and make recommendations on how to finance pandemic preparedness, while minimizing its economic impact.

Finally, the AVIAN Act provides for an Institute of Medicine study to study the legal, ethical, and social implications of pandemic influenza. Americans may be asked to isolate themselves, to stay home from work, to share their medical diagnoses, and to take certain medications. All of these actions may be critical in preventing millions of Americans from getting sick, spreading disease, and dying. Yet, we must make sure that we are fully cognizant of how these decisions will affect the rights of every American.

We face a terrible threat from pandemic avian influenza, and we must not squander the opportunity before us to plan and prepare. In endorsing the AVIAN Act, the Trust for America's Health states: ``The avian flu is a real and dangerous threat to the health to our nation and the world. If the virus mutates slightly, we could have a million Americans hit by the first wave of a pandemic.''

The time to act is now, and I urge my colleagues to join me and pass the AVIAN Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, we have all heard from folks back home about the high price of gasoline. When you pull into a gas station to fill up your tank, you're now paying some of the highest prices of all time.

And when you turn on the news, you see that our dependence on foreign oil keeps us tied to one of the most dangerous and unstable regions in the world. With oil at more than $50 per barrel, some argue that the best way to deal with high gasoline prices is to wait it out--to wait until the world market dynamics change.

I disagree with that mindset. For too long now, we've relied too heavily on foreign oil to fuel our energy needs in this country. This is not good for the United States--not for our economy, not for our national security, and not for our people.

The bill I am introducing today, along with my distinguished colleagues from Illinois and Missouri, is designed to do something about fuel prices and our reliance on foreign oil--something rooted in reality, something achievable in the short term, and something that actually works.

Last week, I visited a gasoline station in Springfield, IL, where along with regular gasoline, a new kind of fuel is offered for consumers--a fuel known as E-85. E-85 is a clean, alternative form of transportation fuel consisting of a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Ethanol is made from renewable, Midwestern corn, and it is 40-60 cents cheaper per gallon than standard gasoline. Last week, at this Springfield station, regular gasoline was listed at $2.06 and E-85 was selling for $1.69.

Not every car can run on E-85 fuel--but there are millions of cars that can. They're known as ``flexible-fuel vehicles,'' and the auto industry is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year. And if any of you are wondering whether cars will run as well on E-85 as they would on regular gas, just ask the Indy 500, which recently announced that all of their cars will soon run on E-85 fuel.

The only problem we have now is that we're in short supply of E-85 stations. While there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, there are only about 400 E-85 stations. And although E-85 has many environmental benefits and is a higher performing fuel, the fuel economy of E-85 is slightly lower than that of regular gasoline. An additional incentive is needed to help ensure that the cost of this clean fuel remains competitive with that of regular gasoline.

That is why I'm introducing a bill to provide a tax credit of 50% for building an E-85 fuel station and a tax credit of 35 cents per gallon of E-85 fuel. This provision is similar to a provision that already has passed the Senate three times. I hope my colleagues will pass this provision again.

We've talked for too long about energy independence in this country, and I think this bill gives us an opportunity to actually get something done about it. I urge the support of my colleagues of this bill, and I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, we have all heard from folks back home about the high price of gasoline. When you pull into a gas station to fill up your tank, you're now paying some of the highest prices of all time.

And when you turn on the news, you see that our dependence on foreign oil keeps us tied to one of the most dangerous and unstable regions in the world. With oil at more than $50 per barrel, some argue that the best way to deal with high gasoline prices is to wait it out--to wait until the world market dynamics change.

I disagree with that mindset. For too long now, we've relied too heavily on foreign oil to fuel our energy needs in this country. This is not good for the United States--not for our economy, not for our national security, and not for our people.

The bill I am introducing today, along with my distinguished colleagues from Illinois and Missouri, is designed to do something about fuel prices and our reliance on foreign oil--something rooted in reality, something achievable in the short term, and something that actually works.

Last week, I visited a gasoline station in Springfield, IL, where along with regular gasoline, a new kind of fuel is offered for consumers--a fuel known as E-85. E-85 is a clean, alternative form of transportation fuel consisting of a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Ethanol is made from renewable, Midwestern corn, and it is 40-60 cents cheaper per gallon than standard gasoline. Last week, at this Springfield station, regular gasoline was listed at $2.06 and E-85 was selling for $1.69.

Not every car can run on E-85 fuel--but there are millions of cars that can. They're known as ``flexible-fuel vehicles,'' and the auto industry is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year. And if any of you are wondering whether cars will run as well on E-85 as they would on regular gas, just ask the Indy 500, which recently announced that all of their cars will soon run on E-85 fuel.

The only problem we have now is that we're in short supply of E-85 stations. While there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, there are only about 400 E-85 stations. And although E-85 has many environmental benefits and is a higher performing fuel, the fuel economy of E-85 is slightly lower than that of regular gasoline. An additional incentive is needed to help ensure that the cost of this clean fuel remains competitive with that of regular gasoline.

That is why I'm introducing a bill to provide a tax credit of 50% for building an E-85 fuel station and a tax credit of 35 cents per gallon of E-85 fuel. This provision is similar to a provision that already has passed the Senate three times. I hope my colleagues will pass this provision again.

We've talked for too long about energy independence in this country, and I think this bill gives us an opportunity to actually get something done about it. I urge the support of my colleagues of this bill, and I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I speak in favor of the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee.

A few weeks ago, I met with Sergeants Ryan Kelly, Jeremy Feldbusch, and Heath Calhoun, all of whom had recently returned from Iraq. They served their country bravely in battle, and in doing so, each of these men sustained a disabling injury that will change their lives forever.

When they came home, it would have been easy for them to go about their own business or feel sorry for themselves.

But they did not. Instead, they decided that their service to our country would not end on the battlefields of Iraq. They would speak out for their fellow soldiers--the ones who also may come home without a leg, or an arm, or their sight, but may not have the resources to carry on and support their families.

This amendment is their tribute to their brothers and sisters-in- arms.

For only about $3 per month, it allows service members to purchase group disability insurance that would award them a maximum of $100,000 if they are deemed seriously injured. For disabled veterans who may not be able to work when they come home, this insurance could help them obtain long-term care, send their kids to school, or simply make sure that they can pay the bills and still put food on the table. It won't cost the Government a dime. It simply needs our approval to allow it to happen.

The blessings of modern technology have saved the lives of many service members who would otherwise have died from their wounds. Yet, it also means there will be more wounded who need care. Every single one of us has a fundamental moral duty to take care of those men and women who've sacrificed to safeguard our freedom. This amendment offers us one way to do that, and I thank Senators Craig and Akaka for their cooperation in moving this issue forward.

I see that the distinguished ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator Leahy is here on the Senate floor. I am wondering it he would take just a moment to discuss with me the critical issue of the avian flu.

Mr. President, an outbreak of the avian flu would be an international calamity. In this age when you can get on a plane in Bangkok and arrive in Chicago or Burlington in hours, we must face the reality that this threat is not a problem isolated half a world away, but is one that could affect people in Illinois, Vermont, and all across America. The director of the Centers for Disease Control recognized the grave consequences this virus could pose to international health when she recently stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the globe . . . [this is] the most important threat we are facing right now.'' It is something that is clearly an emergency and is appropriately addressed in the Iraq Supplemental.

At this point, humans contract the virus overwhelmingly by coming into contact with infected animals, and once contracted, the virus is extremely deadly--a 65 to 75 percent mortality rate for humans-- especially because there is no proven vaccine for the H5N1 strain. Further, effective treatments for this strain of the virus are not widely available and must be delivered within 24 hours.

The recent trends with respect to the spread of the avian flu are very alarming. Over the last few months, there is growing evidence which suggests that the virus may be mutating and could eventually result in a form that is transmittable from human to human. If this were to occur, it could cause the deaths of millions of people, seriously damage economic activity in Southeast Asia, and cause panic and instability throughout the region. Moreover, because of the dynamic nature of Southeast Asia, with all sorts of commerce and transport in and out of the region, the virus would likely spread around the world-- including to the United States, in a matter of hours or days.

I would ask my good friend, the senior Senator from Vermont, who has a

long history of leadership on international health issues. for his assessment of what needs to be done.

Just for the record, the $100 million figure is important for our purposes here today. Before the Appropriations Committee put together the supplemental, we discussed the importance of immediately addressing the avian flu before the situation spirals out of control, and that $25 million is an appropriate amount to deal with this critical emergency. I am correct?

I also know that USAID has already formulated a rapid response plan to use this $25 million, if it is ultimately appropriated.