Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

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

Mr. President, let me inform my colleagues that this amendment is acceptable to the managers of the underlying bill, Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy. I thank them for their work on behalf of this particular effort.

At the conclusion of my remarks, I will not ask that the amendment be adopted at this juncture. Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy prefer that occur at a later time. I wish to take the opportunity to address the amendment and the rationale for it.

I again thank my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member, for accepting the amendment to the Foreign Operations bill.

The amendment I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Reed, relates to the situation in the Republic of Haiti. The island nation shares the island of Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean. The situation there cries out, as any other place in the world, to this body. I have spoken about my concerns with respect to the ongoing crisis in Haiti many times on this floor, as have some of my colleagues.

I commend particularly Senator DeWine of Ohio who has not only spoken about this issue on numerous occasions but, as a result of the efforts he and his family have made, has a very direct involvement in trying to improve the lives of the people in Haiti and has visited the country many times. Those concerns, unfortunately, no matter how often expressed by myself, Senator DeWine, and others, have fallen on deaf ears, unfortunately, in the Bush administration. Apparently, no one in the current administration has made Haiti a priority, and it shows.

I support providing assistance to Haiti, but I do not believe in throwing good money after bad in that situation. Frankly, moneys in this appropriations bill in support of the current election schedule in Haiti are moneys that, in my view, will be totally wasted unless and until the Bush administration gets serious about addressing the foundations of that insecurity--the absence of the rule of law and the presence of armed groups who today terrorize Haiti's cities and towns.

That is why I offer this amendment today to insist that prior to one penny of this money being spent on the election process in Haiti that we in Congress be informed about the administration's game plan for Haiti, if it has one; and if one does not exist, that they develop such a plan so that the U.S. taxpayers' dollars are not wasted on elections that would be deemed illegitimate at best.

I don't think that elections are the be-all and end-all for solving Haiti's problems. Frankly, I am increasingly of the view that more international involvement is needed in Haiti over an extended period of time before any Haitian government has a chance of successfully governing a country which at this juncture is virtually ungovernable. Increased international involvement is unthinkable without U.S. leadership.

The political, economic, and social chaos that exists in Haiti today has created one of the most serious humanitarian crises confronting the international community. More than a year after the ouster of former President Aristide, most Haitians today have abysmal living conditions and they are getting worse by the day.

According to U.S. officials in Haiti, most Haitians, most of the 8 million people on the one-third of that island of Hispaniola, live on a dollar or less a day. More than 40 percent of the children are malnourished, and childbirth is the second leading cause of death among women.

Haiti's AIDS infection rate is the highest outside of sub-Saharan Africa, and an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 Haitian children are born with the virus each year. The average Haitian has a life expectancy of 51 years. That is 20 years short of the Latin American/Caribbean average of 71 years.

Haiti's economy is also in a total shambles. Gross domestic product has been negative in that country for two decades running. Profits from traditional exports of coffee, rice, rum, and other agricultural products of the formal economy are less than half of what they were 20 years ago. Now, remittances from Haitians living abroad are one of the main sources of income. In fact, these remittances account for almost one-third of Haiti's gross domestic product.

What has been the Bush administration's response to the Haitian crisis? Frankly, the administration has been AWOL on Haiti. While they were quick to seize the opportunity to facilitate the removal of the democratically elected President from office, since then there has been a decided disinterest on the part of the administration with respect to the fate of the Haitian people.

Last July, the United States pledged approximately $230 million in aid for fiscal year 2004-2005. This past April, the Senate passed the DeWine-Bingaman amendment, of which I was a cosponsor, providing $20 million for election assistance, employment, and public works. But all of the assistance in the world is not going to solve Haiti's problems until we begin to address the levels of insecurity that exist in that country.

Haiti borders on being a completely failed state if it is not one already. Yet, this administration continues to suggest that elections should go forward later this year so the Haitian people can replace the interim government. Last month, Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega and special envoys from France, Canada, and Brazil visited Port-au-Prince and said that Haiti's political transition was on target. They said the date for the Presidential and legislative elections, November 13, should remain fixed. I wonder how anyone could visit Haiti and come to that conclusion.

Last December, Senator DeWine and I were told we could not visit Port-au-Prince because the security situation was far too dangerous. In late May of this year, the State Department issued the following travel warning on Haiti:

Due to the volatile security situation, the Department has

ordered the departure of nonemergency personnel and all

family members of U.S. Embassy personnel. The Department of

State warns U.S. citizens to defer travel to Haiti and urges

American citizens to depart the country if they can do so

safely.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire travel warning issued by the Department of State be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, that travel warning remains in effect today. Yet, the administration would have us believe that things are on track for holding elections as currently scheduled. Unless there is dramatic action, the likelihood of fair elections in Haiti with widespread voter participation in the near future is remote, at best, and I would argue virtually impossible.

Currently, fewer than 100,000 of the 4 million potential voters have been registered and fewer than a quarter of the necessary registration centers are even open at all. As important, the role of all parties in the elections needs to be protected.

All parties must have a fair and equal chance if these elections are to be legitimate. Ultimately, what should matter most to the United States is that institutionally these elections are legitimate and fair. Whoever wins must make reforms, purge corrupt officials, and work to improve security.

In my view, United States engagement on the security situation is just the first step in what will be a very long, uphill battle if we are going to get the situation right in Haiti. Holding elections for the sake of holding elections on some rigid schedule makes no sense at all. Elections, particularly elections with little or no credibility, are not going to solve Haiti's problems. It is simply going to compound them.

Haiti is in a humanitarian crisis. For that reason alone, the United States should be far more engaged than we are. Frankly, after sending troops to Haiti 4 times in the past 90 years, it is also in our economic interest to address the problem resolutely. We should start by reviving Senator DeWine's HERO Act, as it is called, which would help reinvigorate the Haitian economy by granting preferential trade agreements to certain Haitian textile products.

A year ago, the Senate passed the HERO bill, offered by Senator DeWine, unanimously in this body. There was not a single vote in opposition to Senator DeWine's proposal. The other body, the House of Representatives, unfortunately would not even consider the legislation. If the HERO Act were passed, as it should be, it could help to strengthen Haiti's economy and jump-start real employment in that little island nation. Especially now that the Senate has passed and the House will soon act on the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, this is doubly important. After all, it simply does not make any sense to help the Dominican Republic on two-thirds of the island and leave Haiti a completely failed state on the other one-third of that island.

As it stands now, the options for honest employment are slim to none in the Haitian city centers, particularly the slums of the capital, Port-au-Prince. The major employers in that country are warring gangs, many of them involved in trafficking cocaine.

Indeed, Haiti today is the major transit point for cocaine coming in from South American countries such as Colombia. From the year 2000 to 2004, approximately 8 percent of all the cocaine coming to the United States passed through Haiti. Entire neighborhoods of that country are under the control of these criminal gangs which are responsible for killings, robberies and, increasingly, kidnappings. Authorities in the interim government estimate that each day there are 6 to 12 kidnappings in Port-au-Prince alone.

In total, more than 700 people, including 7 peacekeepers for the United Nations, have been killed in Haiti in the last 8 months. The U.N. forces have tried to respond to the security threats, but frankly the U.N. force is not in a position to quell the violence in Haiti's major cities or to secure many of Haiti's major roads, both of which are now under the control of these criminal gangs.

For one, they are trying to protect a population roughly equal to that of New York City, roughly 8 million people. New York City has 40,000 well-trained and equipped police officers. Haiti has a tiny fraction of that number of U.N. peacekeepers. I would hope the recent U.N. Security Council authorization for an additional 1,000 troops and police will help the U.N. force wrest control from these criminals, but I doubt it.

Secondly, and perhaps even more important than sheer numbers, the United Nations mandate does not give the U.N. forces real authority over the Haitian national police, a force that is in severe disarray.

The national police are good people in many cases, but there are many bad ones indeed who need to be removed. If the U.N. force wants the trust of civilians, they need to make sure the Haitian national police do not ignore human rights or violations in the face of high insecurity, which only fuels the cycle of violence.

Simply put, the credibility of the U.N. force is directly tied to its ability to bring some calm and to prevent abuses. To that end, civilians should be able to contact U.N. forces directly about the abuses by the national police. That does not happen.

I am also troubled by the interim government, led by President Boniface Alexandre and Prime Minister Gerard Latortue. They have delayed justice for thousands of prisoners. Roughly 20 of the more than 7,000 prisoners at the federal penitentiary have been convicted of crimes. Many of them have spent years awaiting trial.

I am particularly concerned about the treatment of former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune who has been held without formal charges for over a year and is near death after a series of off-and-on hunger strikes which he began in February. Now in the sixth month of his protest, I am told his rib cage is sticking out of his skin and he is maybe near death.

On May 25, Prime Minister Neptune was carried to his first hearing on a stretcher where he testified for several hours. He denied the accusations that he masterminded the killings of 25 Haitians in the town of St. Marc and has refused to leave Haiti, despite that offer, until his name is cleared.

The basic point is when it comes to legal issues, it is imperative that the interim government set the tone that the rule of law matters. If they do not set the example at the top, lawlessness will not improve at the bottom. The amendment I am offering is meant to serve as a small wake-up call to the administration and to the Congress that we are watching what is happening. It is meant to send the message that Haiti is only going to have a future if we are prepared to extend a helping hand. What we need now is resolve and a serious commitment from the highest levels of our Government to bring peace, security, and stability to the people of this small island nation.

We have lost interest before. The result is clear. We cannot afford to do it again. The United States should help the Haitian people create an honest government committed to justice, committed to combating poverty, committed to democracy, and to a better

Haiti. I hope the Bush administration will make that commitment. I hope forcing them to take a serious look at conditions on the ground and responding accordingly will produce results.

Again, one does not need to have a Ph.D. in political science to know what the net effect will be if we do not get more serious about Haiti. Haitians will do what they have done, as other peoples have done in other nations who have been confronted by similar fact situations. Haiti is only a few miles off our coast, roughly about 110, 120 miles. Haitians will do what they have done historically. They will leave in droves and they will seek safe refuge wherever they can achieve it. Obviously we do not want that situation to occur again.

So the modest proposal to try and inject some sanity into our policy we hope will stem that tide. I think even more serious measures need to be taken by the international community such as a protectorate of some kind to create some stability there over the coming 10 or 15 years to give any hope to the Haitian people to regain control of their own society.

Words that I can't even conjure up cannot describe the situation in this country. It is getting worse by the hour. Every day we delay, every time we refuse to do what needs to be done, we contribute in our own way to neglect, to a deteriorating situation in that country.

I again want to thank my colleagues Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Reed, for their support of this amendment. Again, it is not going to solve all the problems, but it may serve to get some attention.

I understand the focus on Iraq and the focus on Afghanistan. We cannot neglect the Caribbean. We cannot neglect Haiti. This amendment is designed to try and reawaken some attention to this problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy of Vermont and Senator Biden be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate passed this measure nearly unanimously and I voted in support of it.

I would like to begin by thanking the principal authors and managers of this legislation: Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. It is no easy task to write a bill that provides for our domestic security needs. I commend both of our colleagues and their staffs for the hard work they put into crafting this legislation.

The bill that passed the Senate funds our country's homeland security activities at $31.9 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. These activities include port security, rail security, truck security, aviation security, emergency first responders, customs and border patrol, immigration, the Coast Guard, and counter-terrorism research. Taken together, these initiatives form the foundation upon which our country depends for its internal security.

In an age when terrorism continues to be a growing threat to our Nation, one would think that the Congress of the United States would be doing everything it could to shore up that foundation--to make it as impregnable as possible against those who wish us harm. Yet, when we look at the legislation passed by the Senate, I do not believe it does enough to protect our people from terrorism. We are simply not investing the resources that are required to make this Nation as safe as possible. Instead of filling in the gaps that continue to exist within our homeland security foundation, we are letting those gaps and cracks grow in several critical respects.

One does not have to look further than protecting our critical infrastructure and funding our emergency first responders. These 2 areas arguably form the backbone of our efforts to prevent and effectively respond to terrorist attacks at home. They encompass protecting our ports, our railroads, our transit systems and our commercial vehicles. They encompass quickly and effectively responding to real or perceived threats in all parts of our country.

The bill that passed the Senate provides $3.9 billion to protect our critical infrastructure, equip our first responders, and assist local governments in planning and coordinating their homeland security activities. While this may seem like a large number to many Americans, it has been cited by numerous national security and public health experts, along with first responders themselves, as being wholly inadequate to meet the homeland security demands of the twenty-first century. Furthermore, the number is actually less than what has been provided in the past. It is approximately $500 million less than what was provided last year and approximately $700 million less than 2 years ago. Clearly, we are heading in the wrong direction--doing less to protect our country adequately when we ought to be doing more.

As we have seen in Madrid last year, in London 2 weeks ago and in Iraq almost every week, terrorists have become adept at exploiting weak points in critical infrastructure, particularly transportation systems. I question what it will take for us to realize that we need to be investing more in our domestic critical infrastructure and in our first responders.

Although we have taken steps to boost our homeland security since the

attacks on September 11th, our critical infrastructure remains largely exposed and our emergency first responders spread too thin. Today, less than 5 percent of commercial cargo arriving at our seaports is screened for threats; our rail systems and bus systems remain largely open and unsupervised. Meanwhile, our first responders lack both the staff and resources they need to protect lives and property. Hundreds of police departments--both large and small--have experienced alarming personnel shortages. A super majority of fire departments in this Nation does not have the manpower required to meet the 21st century needs of their districts or municipalities.

As the Senate considered this legislation, I was pleased to lend my support to several amendments that sought to raise resources for critical infrastructure protection and first responders. Among these measures were those to simplify homeland security grants, increase resources to local homeland security programs, enhance air cargo security, increase truck security, ensure greater protection of our rail and transit systems and provide first responders with advanced communication systems. I also offered an amendment that would have increased critical infrastructure security and first responder funding by $16 billion to a total of $20 billion. My amendment would have codified a recommendation made 2 years ago by a task force chaired by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, along with a distinguished panel of national security, intelligence, military and public health officials.

Regrettably, none of these measures was adopted. They were largely rejected because they exceeded the budget caps placed on the bill. Members who spoke in opposition to these amendments argued that we could not afford the extra cost. Instead of finding new resources, they suggested using existing resources already in the bill to boost infrastructure protection and first responders.

For this reason, I had to cast my vote against two amendments that would have increased funding for first responder and border patrol security by decreasing State homeland security grant and Coast Guard funding. This kind of bureaucratic shell game is a wholly inadequate means to protect our critical infrastructure, our first responders and our borders. It entails investing in new resources to do what it is right to put our country on a more secure and sound footing.

Ironically, many of the Members who opposed these amendments have supported permanent tax cuts for the most affluent of Americans--tax cuts that have been projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 15 years. If we can afford to give such a generous tax break to the few thousand wealthiest Americans, then why can we not afford adequately to safeguard 281 million Americans from terrorist attacks at a mere fraction of that cost?

We are living in extraordinary times. Never before in our history has there been a period of time when the threat of harm to Americans on their own soil has been so high. While it has been almost 4 years since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the more recent attacks in Madrid and London tell us that we must remain vigilant about our domestic security. They tell us that we must renew and redouble our efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism here at home.

I applaud Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's decision earlier this week to streamline his department's administrative bureaucracy. I believe that this will enable the Department to respond more effectively to the needs of our States and localities. At the same time, I am deeply disturbed by the Secretary's comments yesterday which suggested that transit security should be paid for entirely by States. I find this view to be dangerously outdated and incongruous with the one needed to combat terrorism effectively. If the events of last week did not remind us already, we no longer live in the 19th century but in the 21st. Our very survival depends on planning and coordination that involves all levels of government. No one entity should bear the enormous financial burden of protecting Americans from terrorist attacks.

On balance, I voted for this legislation because the funding it appropriates is much better than nothing. However, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming years to find and provide the necessary resources that can make our Nation as safe and strong as it can possibly be.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate passed this measure nearly unanimously and I voted in support of it.

I would like to begin by thanking the principal authors and managers of this legislation: Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. It is no easy task to write a bill that provides for our domestic security needs. I commend both of our colleagues and their staffs for the hard work they put into crafting this legislation.

The bill that passed the Senate funds our country's homeland security activities at $31.9 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. These activities include port security, rail security, truck security, aviation security, emergency first responders, customs and border patrol, immigration, the Coast Guard, and counter-terrorism research. Taken together, these initiatives form the foundation upon which our country depends for its internal security.

In an age when terrorism continues to be a growing threat to our Nation, one would think that the Congress of the United States would be doing everything it could to shore up that foundation--to make it as impregnable as possible against those who wish us harm. Yet, when we look at the legislation passed by the Senate, I do not believe it does enough to protect our people from terrorism. We are simply not investing the resources that are required to make this Nation as safe as possible. Instead of filling in the gaps that continue to exist within our homeland security foundation, we are letting those gaps and cracks grow in several critical respects.

One does not have to look further than protecting our critical infrastructure and funding our emergency first responders. These 2 areas arguably form the backbone of our efforts to prevent and effectively respond to terrorist attacks at home. They encompass protecting our ports, our railroads, our transit systems and our commercial vehicles. They encompass quickly and effectively responding to real or perceived threats in all parts of our country.

The bill that passed the Senate provides $3.9 billion to protect our critical infrastructure, equip our first responders, and assist local governments in planning and coordinating their homeland security activities. While this may seem like a large number to many Americans, it has been cited by numerous national security and public health experts, along with first responders themselves, as being wholly inadequate to meet the homeland security demands of the twenty-first century. Furthermore, the number is actually less than what has been provided in the past. It is approximately $500 million less than what was provided last year and approximately $700 million less than 2 years ago. Clearly, we are heading in the wrong direction--doing less to protect our country adequately when we ought to be doing more.

As we have seen in Madrid last year, in London 2 weeks ago and in Iraq almost every week, terrorists have become adept at exploiting weak points in critical infrastructure, particularly transportation systems. I question what it will take for us to realize that we need to be investing more in our domestic critical infrastructure and in our first responders.

Although we have taken steps to boost our homeland security since the

attacks on September 11th, our critical infrastructure remains largely exposed and our emergency first responders spread too thin. Today, less than 5 percent of commercial cargo arriving at our seaports is screened for threats; our rail systems and bus systems remain largely open and unsupervised. Meanwhile, our first responders lack both the staff and resources they need to protect lives and property. Hundreds of police departments--both large and small--have experienced alarming personnel shortages. A super majority of fire departments in this Nation does not have the manpower required to meet the 21st century needs of their districts or municipalities.

As the Senate considered this legislation, I was pleased to lend my support to several amendments that sought to raise resources for critical infrastructure protection and first responders. Among these measures were those to simplify homeland security grants, increase resources to local homeland security programs, enhance air cargo security, increase truck security, ensure greater protection of our rail and transit systems and provide first responders with advanced communication systems. I also offered an amendment that would have increased critical infrastructure security and first responder funding by $16 billion to a total of $20 billion. My amendment would have codified a recommendation made 2 years ago by a task force chaired by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, along with a distinguished panel of national security, intelligence, military and public health officials.

Regrettably, none of these measures was adopted. They were largely rejected because they exceeded the budget caps placed on the bill. Members who spoke in opposition to these amendments argued that we could not afford the extra cost. Instead of finding new resources, they suggested using existing resources already in the bill to boost infrastructure protection and first responders.

For this reason, I had to cast my vote against two amendments that would have increased funding for first responder and border patrol security by decreasing State homeland security grant and Coast Guard funding. This kind of bureaucratic shell game is a wholly inadequate means to protect our critical infrastructure, our first responders and our borders. It entails investing in new resources to do what it is right to put our country on a more secure and sound footing.

Ironically, many of the Members who opposed these amendments have supported permanent tax cuts for the most affluent of Americans--tax cuts that have been projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 15 years. If we can afford to give such a generous tax break to the few thousand wealthiest Americans, then why can we not afford adequately to safeguard 281 million Americans from terrorist attacks at a mere fraction of that cost?

We are living in extraordinary times. Never before in our history has there been a period of time when the threat of harm to Americans on their own soil has been so high. While it has been almost 4 years since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the more recent attacks in Madrid and London tell us that we must remain vigilant about our domestic security. They tell us that we must renew and redouble our efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism here at home.

I applaud Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's decision earlier this week to streamline his department's administrative bureaucracy. I believe that this will enable the Department to respond more effectively to the needs of our States and localities. At the same time, I am deeply disturbed by the Secretary's comments yesterday which suggested that transit security should be paid for entirely by States. I find this view to be dangerously outdated and incongruous with the one needed to combat terrorism effectively. If the events of last week did not remind us already, we no longer live in the 19th century but in the 21st. Our very survival depends on planning and coordination that involves all levels of government. No one entity should bear the enormous financial burden of protecting Americans from terrorist attacks.

On balance, I voted for this legislation because the funding it appropriates is much better than nothing. However, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming years to find and provide the necessary resources that can make our Nation as safe and strong as it can possibly be.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and leader, Senator Reid. Let me respond to a couple of points. I had not intended to get involved deeply in this debate, but a couple things strike me, Mr. President, as this debate evolves.

First of all, this is an appropriate discussion on this bill. On what more appropriate piece of legislation could you have discussion than this one regarding intelligence matters that deal with the very issue of homeland security. So I don't understand the objection. You may object to the amendment, but the idea that on the Homeland Security bill where security plays a critical role, it seems to me discussing this matter has relevancy.

Secondly, it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to draft legislation to try to deal with these matters. Certainly what the Senator from Nevada has raised is responding to what is a national story, one that has been around now for the last several years, a matter, I might add, that could have been resolved probably a couple of years ago had Mr. Rove at the time said, Look, I am the person who spoke to Matt Cooper. I am the one who used Mr. Wilson's wife, describing her in those terms, and maybe explained at the time he didn't intend to do it. We might not be talking about this matter as extensively as we are today. But the fact is they covered it up for the last 2 years rather than coming clean and saying, I had that conversation.

I am perplexed at what the response of this is. Are my colleagues on the

other side suggesting as the alternative to what Senator Reid proposes a better suggestion that people who do reveal highly classified information, the names of covert agents, should be allowed to continue to keep their secret classification? I don't think so.

That is really what the point of this is, to make the case that when anyone reveals, including Members of this body, highly classified information, the names of covert agents, you lose the privilege of having a security clearance. It is not a criminal indictment. It just says if you do that, you don't have the privilege of having that kind of a classification. I don't know why there is such a protest. This ought to be adopted unanimously.

Where is the objection? This does not mention Karl Rove, although certainly his actions have provoked this discussion. If in fact it turns out that he is indicted, then he will have to face those allegations. But to suggest that somehow we should do nothing about this, despite the fact that everyone is talking about it across the country--it has been a serious problem, it needs to be addressed, an investigation is ongoing--that should not deprive this body of responding to a situation where classified information, the name of a CIA agent, has been revealed and we ought to say something about it.

So, Mr. President, I think what Senator Reid has proposed is eminently reasonable. It is applying to everyone here. And Senator Rockefeller, our friend from West Virginia, is absolutely correct. It is an ongoing problem, almost on a daily basis, and we need to speak loudly and clearly, it has got to stop. If we are going to be more secure as a people, then we need to stop revealing important information and the identities of people who we depend upon to make us more secure. That is what the Reid amendment does.

My hope is we would have 100 Members supporting this amendment instead of a divisive debate over whether this is about an employee at the White House who, in my opinion, probably ought to voluntarily step aside pending the investigation and voluntarily give up his security clearance.

If he were a police officer in any department in the United States who had been accused of such a transgression, the chief of police would ask him to step aside temporarily, not to resign, not to retire but to step aside pending the investigation to determine whether the allegations were true.

That is what ought to happen here. But Mr. Rove is not directly the subject of this amendment. It is simply a response to a problem that exists in our country and one that needs to be addressed. Senator Reid is right, and if our colleagues were smart, they would endorse this amendment and support it unanimously at the appropriate time when the vote occurs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1202 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, along with Senators Corzine and Lautenberg of New Jersey.

The purpose of this amendment is very simple, although the amount I am asking for here is rather large. The purpose is to fund sufficiently the urgent priorities of our Nation's firefighters, law enforcement personnel, emergency medical personnel, transportation systems, and other critical infrastructure such as our ports and chemical plants. The amendment's language suggests paying for these vital priorities by limiting some of the tax breaks for individuals with annual incomes in excess of $1 million. I assume that at an appropriate time my colleague from New Hampshire or others will make a point of order against this amendment. I will then move to waive that point of order. In the meantime, let me explain the amendment.

It is one I initially offered two years ago during a similar debate regarding homeland security. I was not successful in having the amendment adopted then. I am hopeful that I will be successful today, especially in light of events during the last several days in London. But I understand, given the size of the amount I am requesting, that the chances of this amendment being adopted are not great.

Nevertheless, it is important to offer this measure anyway because it isn't an amendment I crafted per se, although I offer it here legislatively. The language and request of this amendment were a result of two task forces conducted by the Council on Foreign Relations that examined America's needs in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and laid out, by our former colleagues Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, along with members of their task force, the vital importance of sufficiently preparing for the inevitable events that are occurring at the hands of terrorist organizations. I don't know how many more events it is going to take for us to respond with the kinds of resources we need to have in place.

I was a Member of this body when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were hit, the Lockerbie incident happened, the World Trade Center was first bombed, the USS Cole was attacked, the embassies in Africa were bombed, and then, of course, when the World Trade Center was attacked for the second time. We have seen in Tokyo the subway attacks in 1996, the Madrid train bombing in March of 2004 and, of course, the London Underground attacks only a few days ago. These are just a few of the hundreds of terrorist attacks that have taken place around our world over the last couple of decades.

Let me outline the Rudman report and why this amendment is important.

Two years ago the Council on Foreign Relations convened an independent task force to identify the challenges faced by our Nation in preventing and responding to acts of terrorism. This task force was chaired by our former colleague Senator Rudman. In June 2003, the task force issued a comprehensive report entitled ``Emergency Responders: Dramatically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.''

Former Senator Rudman was joined on this task force by a very distinguished group of our fellow American citizens. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the entire list of those people who prepared the report.

Let me mention several of them because they are important. What I am offering as an amendment were suggestions made by this panel to the Department of Homeland Security and to the Congress as a way of bolstering our security needs across the Nation.

The membership of this distinguished panel included George Shultz, former Secretary of State, Treasury, and Labor; William Webster, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Charles Boyd, chief executive officer and president of the Business Executives for National Security; Margaret Hamburg, vice president for biological weapons at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and former Assistant Secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services; Don Marron, former chairman of UBS America; James Metzl, former staff member of the NSC, the Department of State, and former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; and Harold Varmus, president and chief executive officer of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute.

The list goes on. These are the people who ``prepared,'' in a sense, the amendment I am offering. The suggestions I am offering are ones suggested as a result of the task force's recommendations.

Let me say that I have great respect for Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd who have dealt with these issues in their capacities as Chairman and Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee respectively. It is not easy to put together these bills under budget caps. I understand that, and I have respect for it. I understand the constraints under which my colleagues operate. Certainly, they are trying to provide adequate resources for our emergency responders and critical infrastructure needs in this country.

If the tragic events in London and the events I mentioned at the outset say anything to us as a people, it is that we must renew and redouble our efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism at home. The Rudman report only underscores the sense of urgency that we ought to have about protecting our country from the risk of terrorism.

I appreciate that the managers of the bill are seeking to have $100 million of added resources for transit security. They are working within very tight budget constraints. Nevertheless, the security needs of our country far exceed what the managers are able to provide with the limited resources they have been given under this bill.

The Rudman report says our Nation should immediately spend--and this was 2 years ago--$20 billion per year for 5 years to hire, equip, and train first responders and to better protect our critical infrastructure from attack. This bill spends roughly $3.9 billion--less than one-fifth of what the Rudman report called for 2 years ago. That, I might add, is close to $700 million less than was spent 2 years ago. So it appears we are headed in the wrong direction and doing less than what we should be doing.

I would like to read various passages of the Rudman report to try to persuade Members of the sense of urgency that Senator Rudman and the Commission certainly had 2 years ago, and to shed light, if you will, on a survey and study done by those who are very knowledgeable about the challenges posed by international terrorism and about the needs and steps that need to be taken to make our Nation more prepared to meet those challenges.

I will read the conclusion of the report prepared by Senator Rudman:

The terrible events of September 11 have shown the American

people how vulnerable they are because attacks on that scale

had never been carried out on United States soil. The United

States and the American people were caught underprotected and

unaware of the magnitude of the threat facing them.

In the wake of September 11, ignorance of the nature of the threat or of what the United States must do to prepare for future attacks can no longer explain America's continuing failure to allocate sufficient resources in preparing local emergency responders. It would be a terrible tragedy indeed if it took another catastrophic attack to drive the point home.

I do not think any words can express the problem before us more clearly than those of Senator Rudman.

I will quote from the foreword written by Les Gelb, the former President of the Council on Foreign Relations:

As I sit to write this forward, it is likely that a

terrorist group somewhere in the world is developing plans to

attack the United States and/or American interests abroad

using chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or

catastrophic conventional means. At the very same time,

diplomats, legislators, military, and intelligence

officers, police, fire, and emergency medical personnel,

and others in the U.S. and across the globe are working

feverishly to prevent or prepare for such attacks. These

two groups of people are ultimately in a race with one

another. This is a race we cannot afford to lose.

Several months prior to the issuance of the Rudman report, in October 2002, the Council on Foreign Relations convened another task force, the Independent Task Force on Homeland Security, which issued the report, ``America: Still Unprepared, Still in Danger.'' The task force, co- chaired by Senators Rudman and Hart, came to the general conclusion that:

America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and

respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The report further warned that:

America's own ill-prepared response could hurt its people

to a much greater extent than any single attack by a

terrorist, and the risk of self-inflicted harm to America's

liberties and the way of life is greatest during and

immediately following a national trauma.

So here you have two seminal reports, issued within 8 months of one another, prepared by some of the most respected individuals in this country, who have longstanding experience in the matters of diplomacy and national security. These are not lightweights who made these recommendations I am offering as part of this amendment. They are top experts and they have sounded the alarm to us. They sounded it after 9/ 11; they sounded it before Madrid and London. How many more events before we put the kind of resources in place that allows this Nation to have a much higher sense of security, as we ought to have in light of the attacks presently being prepared and focused against us?

The funding level that Senator Stabenow and I are proposing in this amendment is over $16 billion. It is huge; I understand that. It supplements the approximately $4 billion that the underlying measure devotes to emergency responders and infrastructure security. Together the bill and the amendment provide $20 billion in emergency responder funding over the next year.

This is the recommendation of the Rudman report. This is the recommendation of the individuals who helped prepare that report. It is a recommendation made by respected experts and leaders in the fields of national security, intelligence, foreign relations, military affairs, bio-terrorism, business, public health, and budget analysis. These distinguished

men and women spent significant time analyzing the problems facing our first responders and our Nation's security. They gave us their best professional judgment of what we need to do. Regrettably, we are falling woefully short of what needs to be done in this country.

I understand the need for a budget resolution that sets caps on appropriations bills. Effective budget resolutions in the Senate are those that achieve balance. They curb reckless spending while providing a sound investment in our domestic and foreign priorities. Unfortunately, I don't find the current budget resolution and the caps it has imposed very balanced at all. While constraining our ability to invest adequately in our emergency responders and domestic security, this resolution causes, in my view, the national deficit to increase by at least $130 billion over the next 5 years, principally through tax cuts that only benefit the most affluent of our citizens.

I represent if not the most affluent State, one of the most affluent States in the country. I have no doubt that the people of Connecticut would certainly be prepared--when asked whether they could do with a little less in order to provide the Nation with more security--to agree. They understand this issue. I believe that given the choice, they would rather see the tax cut they are receiving go to this kind of investment.

The report before us represents an uncomfortable reality that we have to face as a nation. I certainly applaud the hard and groundbreaking work done so far to reduce the threat of terrorism in this Nation. A lot of good people are working hard at this. Yet as the tragedy in London vividly showed us last week, no nation, including ours, is invulnerable. We still possess weaknesses in our domestic security and our infrastructure that must be strengthened.

For over 2 years now, we have possessed in the form of the Rudman and Hart reports a clear message from the most qualified experts in our Nation that we need to do more to prepare ourselves. While I apologize for offering an amendment that costs over $16 billion, I ask my colleagues why we should not offer an amendment that encompasses what the Rudman report recommends and what is dearly needed. Why not offer an amendment that meets the needs of our emergency responders while doing significantly more to boost security measures along our rails, on our trucks, and in our seaports and harbors? In my view, we should decide whether we think the recommendations made by these distinguished Americans deserve our support and whether we have the will to do what is needed to be done to put our country on a more sound and secure footing.

The Rudman report makes several comprehensive recommendations to increase our investment in emergency responders and domestic security. Among these recommendations are: One, developing a standard for emergency responder minimum essential capabilities in fields such as training, interoperable communications systems, and response equipment; two, developing a standard for determining the nature of cost sharing between Federal, State, and municipal governments for homeland security activities; three, guaranteeing multiyear Federal funding for homeland security activities funded jointly by Federal municipal resources; four, reforming congressional oversight; five, allowing for greater flexibility in using Federal homeland security resources; six, developing a standard for evaluating best practices; and seven, developing a standard to ensure more effective coordination between Federal, State, and municipal governments.

While the Department of Homeland Security has started to address some of these recommendations--and I note that this morning Secretary Chertoff announced some significant administrative changes to the Department of Homeland Security, and I applaud him for that--I think many more changes and resources must be implemented and provided respectively to meet the Rudman report recommendations fully. I think we ought to be doing more by supporting the financial needs that are going to provide for the various gaps that occur in the security of our various infrastructure systems.

Finally, we all know that the cost of this amendment is large. I want to put this figure in perspective. We are spending roughly $5 billion every month in Iraq and Afghanistan--$1 billion a week in Iraq and $1 billion a month in Afghanistan. That is $15 billion in vital spending and funding every 3 months to ensure that our men and women in uniform can deal with the threats in those foreign lands. Senator Stabenow, the other cosponsors of this amendment, and I are asking for $16 billion for a whole year to make us more secure at home. I understand the needs and I have supported the funding for our troops in the field. We know as a result of the Rudman report that we are woefully short in what needs to be done at home to keep our Nation more secure.

As I mentioned a moment ago at the outset of these remarks, how many more incidents need to occur before we do what the Rudman report has called for? How many more times do we have to be attacked to realize what major steps need to be taken to be better prepared?

I believe that if we have the will, we can find the resources that we know are needed to make sure we have the infrastructure security in place and the personnel support in place to give our fellow citizenry the greater sense of security that they ought to have.

With that, at the appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I move to waive the budget point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

I know my colleague from Hawaii is in the Chamber, but I want to respond to comments made by my friend from New Hampshire. He gave a good response to this amendment. It is a good bureaucratic response. As I said during my remarks, I apologize for offering an amendment of this magnitude. The Senator from New Hampshire is absolutely correct, the entire budget we are talking about for homeland security is around $31 billion. This amendment is 50 percent of that budget.

I was fully aware, when I came to the floor to offer this amendment, of the reaction it would receive, but I also happen to believe the Rudman report, written by a group of people who are serious about these matters, has laid out for us very clearly what needs to be done.

Whether our domestic security is funded by reducing millionaire tax cuts or by some other mechanism, I am willing to listen. I just tried to offer one idea of where these resources could come from. Obviously, when an amendment like this is offered, I do not have the right to offer necessarily an offset so large. Tax cuts provided to the most affluent Americans was simply a suggestion as to where the resources could come from.

The underlying point needs to be made that we are not doing enough in the areas where we are terribly vulnerable. I will state how we are spending this money and lay it out. First, we are spending actually less this year than we have in the previous 2 years. In the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, which covers port security, truck security, rail security, training, technical assistance and development, we are going to spend just under $2.7 billion. Last year, it was in excess of $3 billion. The numbers are coming down, and yet almost everyone now knows in this country that our ports across the Nation are entirely vulnerable.

Less than 5 percent of containers have any screening done on them. Our rail and freight systems are virtually wide open. Stories get written every single day about the vulnerabilities that exist. We take the bulk of the funding proposed by this amendment--in excess of $11 billion--and put it into these critical areas.

Again, I know it is a lot of money, but let another attack occur in this country, as I believe it will, and then look back and say: I wonder if we might have done a little more in the areas where we were vulnerable to prevent the attack, or I wonder whether or not the Senator from Connecticut was asking for too much.

I merely cited Iraq and Afghanistan to give a sense of proportionality. I have strongly supported the resources that ensure our troops receive the adequate funding they need.

And by the way, in certain areas like equipment, they are not even getting what they ought to be getting.

I make the point that there we are spending roughly $15 billion every 3 months. This amendment costs roughly the same amount over a full year.

I have a pretty good sense, after a number of years here, as to what is going to happen with this amendment. It is probably going to fail. But I want the American public to know there are those of us who believe that if one has the will, one can find a way to do this. Whether one likes my proposed offset or not, if one believes that we ought to be doing more to make our ports, our rail systems, our truck security, and other infrastructure far better prepared than they are today, then they ought to support this amendment.

If they think we are doing enough already, then vote against it. I believe we are not doing enough, and I think many people in this country believe that as well. That is why I offer this amendment.

In conclusion, I would like to add a summary of the conclusions and recommendations of the Rudman report. The full report is some 70 or 80 pages and that is too long to include in the Record. It is available to Members who would care to have a full copy of it. This is approximately 12 pages. I ask unanimous consent that the conclusions and recommendations of the Rudman Report on Homeland Security be printed in the Record.

Again, I have great respect for my colleague from New Hampshire. He has a very difficult job, and there are constraints, but I also have been around long enough to know that when faced with emergencies that we have a way of getting around those constraints and doing what needs to be done. We have certainly done that in Iraq. We have done it in Afghanistan. I believe we ought to do it at home as well.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have cleared this with the distinguished manager of the bill. I send a modification of the Dodd amendment, amendment No. 1202, to the desk.

Let me begin once again by expressing my appreciation to the chairman and the manager of this bill, Senator Gregg, and my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. They have done a good job with this bill. This bill deals with several complicated issues. The events during the past few days in London have highlighted the importance of these issues concerning our homeland security. I want to express my appreciation to Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd for operating within the constraints of the budget caps.

I realize by offering an amendment so large--50 percent of the entire amount in this bill--I am offering an extraordinary amendment. I tried to make it clear today that these are extraordinary times with extraordinary events. Since 1983, when the bombing of the Marine barracks took place in Beirut where we lost 242 Marines, 221 major terrorist attacks have occurred around the world. Fifty-eight of those attacks, almost 25 percent, were carried out in transit systems, with the use of trucks or cars or in seaports.

We know today in our own country that we are glaringly lax in providing the security we need within our transit systems, harbors, and ports.

The amendment I am offering is not one that I have crafted on my own. It was crafted largely from the recommendations Senator Warren Rudman, our former colleague, had suggested in a report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations that included many distinguished Americans who have worked in areas of national security as well as public health, intelligence, and bioterrorism. They suggested strongly in their report that we spend some $20 billion a year in order to fully invest in what we need to make our country more secure.

Let me quote, if I can, once again, because I think his comments are worth repeating, the language of Senator Rudman in that report. Senator Rudman said at that time:

The terrible events of September 11 have shown the American

people how vulnerable they are because attacks on that scale

had never been carried out on U.S. soil. The United States

and the American people were caught underprotected and

unaware of the magnitude of the threat facing them.

He goes on to say:

In the wake of September 11, ignorance of the nature of the

threat or of what the United States must do to prepare for

future attacks can no longer explain America's continuing

failure to allocate sufficient resources in preparing local

emergency responders. It would be a terrible tragedy indeed

if it took another catastrophic attack to drive that point

home.

Let me also, if I can, read once again the language of Les Gelb, in preparing the foreword of that report. Les Gelb wrote, on the occasion of this report being filed:

As I sit to write this foreword, it is likely that a

terrorist group somewhere in the world is developing plans to

attack the United States and/or American interests abroad

using chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or

catastrophic conventional means. At the same time, diplomats,

legislators, military and intelligence officers, police,

fire, and emergency medical personnel and others in the

United States and across the globe are working feverishly to

prevent and prepare for such attacks. These two groups of

people are ultimately in a race with one another. This is a

race we cannot afford to lose.

I think those words ought to be taken to heart. Since that report was filed, of course, we have seen the attacks in Madrid on their transit system and the people there who lost their lives in March of 2004 and we have seen the attacks in London, the suicide bombings that we now know occurred there--the first time suicide bombers appeared in the West. What kind of attack will it take for us to realize we can no longer wait to do what needs to be done to prepare our transit systems, our ports, our harbors--what more needs to be done to make America more secure?

Is my amendment a large amendment? It is. Is it extraordinary in its size? It is. But I strongly suggest to my colleagues the events we are facing as a people are no less extraordinary and demand, I think, extraordinary action.

While there will be a move here, obviously, to raise the point of order on the budget against this amendment because of its size--and I have asked to waive that point of order--at some point we are going to be faced again with these tragedies. I only hope we have the resources at hand to minimize them. How many events will it take? What catastrophic occurrence is going to have to occur before we realize we need to make these investments?

I know all the bureaucratic arguments that are being made here, but I don't think they apply. I think when we are faced, as we have been historically, with major events, major problems, this body, this Congress, the American people have responded accordingly. I think the American people expect nothing less of us at this hour. So I urge my colleagues to support this motion to waive and to support this amendment so we can do what needs to be done to make our country more secure.

Again, I appreciate immensely the efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire. I understand his points. They are points that are well taken. But I also believe the point I am making here is one deserving of attention.

Mr. President, I list here, for those who may be interested, the 221 significant terrorist incidents since 1983. I have categorized each of them that occurred and the numbers of lives lost. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

I know the Senate would like to vote quickly and I am prepared

to do so. I thank the Senator for his patience and indulgence.

The chairman is very gracious. He has probably worn out his patience on this amendment.

This amendment is an extraordinary amendment. I fully understand that. I believe the events, particularly over the last week, have highlighted the extraordinary times we are in and the challenges we face.

The bulk of the $16 billion is not to first responders but to harbors, port and chemical plants where there is great vulnerability today.

Recently, I was in Seville, Spain, attending a conference. I rode the train from Seville to Madrid and arrived in the same station where the attacks occurred in March of 2004. My luggage, when I got on the train in Seville to go to Madrid, was quickly checked through a scanning system. We have nothing like that.

I am not suggesting had something like that existed in London the problem could have been avoided. I know terrorists might have used another means to attack as they did that day, but it minimizes the possibility.

The vulnerabilities we have in our country today in the areas I have described demand attention. With all due respect, this bill is a reduction in funding for these areas, not an increase. We ought to be doing more. This amendment is a large amount, but to do less would be a tragedy. I hope the waiver will be adopted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes from the time under the control of Senator Dorgan, to be followed by Senator Martinez for up to 10 minutes from the time under the control of Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, let me begin by commending, again, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and Senator Baucus, the ranking Democrat, and members of that committee. It is a very important committee of the Senate, obviously. They are charged with the responsibility of dealing with trade agreements. The implications of these trade agreements obviously go beyond just the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. It can be argued, I think very correctly, that these agreements have huge foreign policy implications, national security implications as well as, obviously, labor implications. So the Finance Committee is asked to grapple with very compelling issues that touch on a lot of other subject matters when they deal with it.

I rise today to speak about this Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, known as the CAFTA-DR agreement. Yesterday evening, I came to the floor to express my hopes that this agreement could be strengthened in the waning hours before a vote on its implementing legislation. I did so because I very much want to support this agreement.

Let me explain why again. Many of my colleagues, I suppose, know the reason. As long as I have been a Member of this body I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have, for most of those years, been either the chairman or the ranking Democrat of the subcommittee dealing with Latin America.

My colleagues, many of them, know as well that some 39 years ago, as I finished my college education, I joined the Peace Corps and traveled to the Dominican Republic where, for about 2 years I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the wonderful mountain village of Bonito Moncion, not very far from the Haitian border. I have a special affection for the Dominican Republic. The people of that small mountain village embraced me as one of their own. In fact, only a few weeks ago I traveled back to that mountain village of Moncion after a 24-year absence and spent a remarkable day with people I had known, who had such a wonderful impact on my life as a young Peace Corps volunteer.

When I came to this body and went to the Congress in 1974, along with Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, we were the first two former Peace Corps volunteers to be elected to the U.S. Congress.

Paul Tsongas came to the Senate 2 years before I did. When I arrived here, we became the only Peace Corps volunteers to have served in this Senate. Today, I believe I am the only one to have had that privilege of being a volunteer in the Dominican Republic and to serve in this Senate. The countries of Central America I know well. I have traveled to all of them extensively over the years. I know the heads of states of each of these countries and have known virtually all of the heads of state over the last 24 years. It is with a great deal of personal interest, in addition to the subject matter interest, that draws me to this debate and to the Senate this afternoon. I have worked closely with many of these countries. As much as any Member of this Senate, I understand what a great boom a well-crafted agreement on trade can be to the people of Central America and for the Dominican Republic, as well as for we Americans.

I don't expect CAFTA-DR agreement to be perfect. No trade agreement ever is. There are always matters either left unaddressed or under- addressed when

we have these agreements. The question should be whether trade agreements, on balance, serve to protect American interests and lift up the countries that we are negotiating with, or whether they will lead us all in the opposite direction.

That is why I welcome the efforts of my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to strengthen the capacity of these nations of Central America and the Dominican Republic to effectively enforce and uphold internationally recognized labor rights. I believe the commitment by the administration to provide funds for the International Labor Organization, the ILO as it is called, in these CAFTA-DR countries is a step in the right direction. I commend my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, for pursuing this provision. I commend Ambassador Portman for accepting the idea.

But to strengthen the effectiveness of the International Labor Organization in carrying out its work in Central America, I believe there also needs to be a clear understanding, before we vote on the CAFTA-DR agreement, of the freedom activity that the International Labor Organization must have if its efforts are going to be effective. After all, the problem is not just about capacity building, as important as that is, which was the focus of the agreement with our colleague from New Mexico, it must also, out of necessity, be about enforcement of those rights.

That is why I met yesterday, at some length, with Ambassador Portman and his staff and contacted the ambassadors of the five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic to describe what I believe is needed to make the International Labor Organization initiative of this agreement a meaningful one.

As my colleagues know, over the years, I have generally been a supporter of free-trade agreements. If properly constructed, I believe trade agreements are in the best long-term interests of the United States. That is because, in today's highly interconnected world, we must keep up and adjust to the changes around us if we are going to compete effectively.

This great surge toward a globalized world economy has brought gains and losses here in our own country. Some industries have benefitted greatly; others have struggled to compete. On balance, I believe free trade has benefitted our country. But we have not done enough, especially during the past few years, to help ease the transition for those many Americans who are struggling.

Globalization has affected other nations around the globe. From Latin America to India, Africa to China, no country has escaped the impact of this process. The difference is that while globalization has helped lift many nations, it has also left many others behind.

In this hemisphere, the results have been mixed. Countries such as Brazil and Chile are doing quite well.

Others have stagnated or, worse, even regressed. I put this in context for my colleagues when it comes to Central America and the Dominican Republic. When considering this debate and the conclusion of it, consider that one-third of the entire population of Latin America currently lives in poverty. In the nations south of the Rio Grande River, 128 million people survive on less than $2 a day; 50 million on less than $1 a day. That is more than a third of the entire population of these nations. In Central America alone, three out of every five citizens live in conditions of poverty. Two out of every five are indigent or in conditions of extreme poverty.

In Nicaragua, for instance, there is widespread malnutrition and unemployment rates are way over 40 percent. Nicaragua is the second poorest nation in this hemisphere, with nearly half its population living on less than $1 a day.

In Guatemala, the situation is also dire. Malnutrition rates are among the highest in the world. Life expectancy as well as infant and infant mortality rates are among the worst in this hemisphere. Illiteracy exceeds 30 percent and most people have less than 5 years of a formal education.

But there is not only tremendous poverty in these nations, income and equality in Latin America is also one of the highest in the world. Consider that the richest 10 percent of all Latin Americans earn roughly 50 percent of the total national income in these nations; whereas the bottom 10 percent earn only 1.6 percent of income.

Despite economic growth throughout the 1990s, unemployment in Latin America has actually increased. The Central American region has suffered greatly as a result of natural disasters. Hardly a year goes by that some natural tragedy does not occur in these nations. My colleagues will recall the mud slides in Haiti which last year cost thousands of people their lives and homes. There are repeated hurricanes that have hit Central America over the last decade and a half.

In early 1993, after one of those hurricanes hit Nicaragua, I went down to work with the people of those nations to clear mud out of schools and impoverished communities. Bridges were wiped out, crops were lost, the country was devastated.

In 1998, Hurricane Mitch, a category 5 storm, hit Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador, killing 9,000 people and leaving more than 700,000 people in those four countries homeless.

We are also talking about nations, many of which were almost ripped apart by brutal civil wars and political violence. Guatemala's troubled history dates back to 1954, when a military coup overthrew Guatemala's popularly elected president, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, triggering a bloody civil conflict that lasted more than 30 years. Guatemala's conflict was largely a struggle for land rights and resulted in the murder or disappearance of more than 200,000 people, many of them indigenous Mayans living in the highlands of Guatemala. Fortunately, this armed conflict ended in 1996, with the signing of the peace accords between the Guatemalan Government and the armed opposition, grouped together as the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unit.

In El Salvador, it was discontent over social inequalities, a poor economy and a repressive dictatorship that in 1980 finally ignited a civil war between a repressive military government and leftist guerilla groups who united under the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front. During 12 years of that civil war, 75,000 Salvadorans, mostly civilians, were killed and thousands more fled to refugee camps in Honduras and many more made their way north to the United States as immigrants. The United States provided more than $5 billion in economic and military assistance to the Salvadoran Government over the course of that conflict. But it took the U.N. to broker a peace accord to end a conflict that military force failed to resolve.

Nicaragua's story is almost somewhat similar. In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front of Nicaragua overthrew the 40-year dictatorship of the Somoza family and took control. In 1981, the Reagan administration responded aggressively to regional concerns with respect to the leftist regime. The United States funded and organized the new paramilitary force which became known as the Contras. The Contra war, as it became known, lasted until 1988 and resulted in more than 25,000 deaths in that country and 700,000 refugees and displaced people.

Although Honduras faced no serious civil conflict of its own, it served as a staging ground for efforts of the United States to fight the insurgencies in Guatemala and El Salvador and to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

Honduras's geographically central location made it a convenient base of operations for the Contras and a center of training and supply for the Salvadoran and Guatemalan militaries.

Even democratic Costa Rica felt the ripple effects of its neighbors' conflicts as displaced persons from other countries took up residence in that nation.

Finally, the governments of Central America courageously decided to take matters into their own hands. In 1987, without any real assistance from the United States, the Presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica negotiated and signed an agreement to create conditions for peace in Central America, which became known as the Esquipulas Agreement. That agreement marked a

turning point for the people of Central America and created real possibilities for peace, reconciliation, and prosperity for the people of that region.

Since 1990, the countries of the region have made progress. The guns have been silenced. There has been political reconciliation. There have been domestic or democratic elections. But still the region struggles for many of the root causes that sparked the civil conflicts in the first place: poverty and inequality and injustice.

Taken individually or as a whole, this poverty, inequality, suffering, and political instability have severe implications. First, they threaten the political stability of Latin America. And I am very worried not only about this region but also other nations in the hemisphere that are democratic governments but are very fragile democracies. And second, by extension, they also threaten the national interests of the United States, as political instability did in the 1980s.

To understand how this is possible, I would point to--and advise my colleagues, if they have the time, to read--a 2004 report by the United Nations Development Program.

According to that report, progress in extending elective democracy across Latin America is threatened by ongoing social and economic turmoil. Most troubling, the report suggests that over 50 percent of the population of Latin America would be willing to sacrifice democratic government for real progress on economic and social fronts. That is a very frightening statistic. And it should make crystal clear the urgency of this situation.

Two decades of democratic progress in our hemisphere are at risk. Certainly, strong trade relations remain a key to creating a healthy economy both here in the United States and throughout the region. But trade alone cannot address the myriad of challenges facing Latin America, where millions of citizens in this hemisphere remain marginalized by economic insecurity and social dislocation. And, sadly, the attention and foreign aid dollars of the United States have been diverted to other parts of the world in recent years.

That is why I welcome the Bush administration's decision to reengage with the region and to strengthen economic ties by negotiating a regional free-trade agreement. I believe that the right kind of trade agreements can help these countries get on the proper course to stronger and more just societies.

The question is whether, on balance, the agreement before us is that right kind of agreement. I stress the term ``agreement'' because it reminds us that these documents are about much more than free trade.

They are about the worker who could lose his or her job. They are about the average citizen trying to provide for their families. And they are about social cohesion and political stability.

These agreements are also about the future of a nation's economy. They are about protecting our national security. And they are about ensuring that the next generation will inherit a stronger foundation on which to build their futures.

Or at least they should be.

We, in the Congress need to decide if these agreements live up to these standards. As I said earlier, I have been, throughout my years here, a strong supporter of free-trade agreements. The case we have before us--of course, CAFTA-DR, deals with the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica.

A meaningful agreement with these countries could, in my view, benefit the United States and the nations involved alike. For the most part, they need help. Poverty, corruption, social dislocation, and instability are all too familiar to the citizens of many of these nations.

But the CAFTA-Dominican Republic agreement has some weaknesses, ones we tried to address over the last several days.

Mr. President, I understand the sense of urgency the administration feels in having this agreement be decided upon in the waning hours before the Fourth of July recess. I regret, unfortunately, that we have to rush at this. But I understand why. If you do not have these agreements up under these time constraints, then they may not pass at all. So I appreciate the politics of why it is up under this shortened time-frame or up against the wall of this recess.

That said, I regret we did not have a few more days. If we did have some more time I believe we might have been able to make some very important improvements to weaknesses in the current agreement.

The most fundamental of these weaknesses I discussed last evening and I talked about at great length with Ambassador Portman yesterday.

I also sent him a letter addressing the specificity of them; and that is, namely, the issue of labor laws in the CAFTA-Dominican Republic countries.

When I speak of labor laws, I am speaking about the kinds of laws that these countries have enacted and about the enforcement of these laws. I am also speaking about current trade packages in this hemisphere that have been a major step forward to guarantee improvements in quality of life, creating wealth in these countries which, obviously, benefits us, as we want trade with nations that have people who can afford the cost of our goods and services. Both of these issues are critical components, I might add, to protecting Americans and to ensuring real progress is made in these nations.

I would turn here to the issue of labor laws. According to the CAFTA- Dominican Republic agreement, signatory countries must simply enforce the labor laws of their own nations--whatever they may be--in order to be in compliance. Indeed, I would note that the Dominican Republic and all the Central American countries, except El Salvador, have ratified what the International Labor Organization refers to as its eight fundamental conventions on labor rights. El Salvador, I might add, has ratified six of the eight. And while El Salvador needs to be brought up to speed, other signatories' laws seem to be at least minimally sufficient to the task, in my view.

Why then does the current arrangement, with respect to labor laws, weaken this agreement? Because of two things. First, it does not hold those countries to the same objective standards. In fact, the CAFTA-DR agreement would actually lower current standards. Second, it ignores the impact that a lack of objective standards could have on the region.

Let me explain.

Previous trade preference programs for the region--previous ones; this is not new ground; previous ones--provided that the President should at least take into account the extent to which the beneficiary countries provide internationally recognized workers' rights. This is not the case with the CAFTA-DR agreement.

In addition, as currently written, the CAFTA-DR agreement would weaken standards that these countries have been living under through the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences, where these agreements are not required. So instead of asking them to do the same with the CAFTA-DR agreement--or more--we are actually asking them to do less. It is a step backwards.

Under the current trade agreements in this region, trade benefits can be withdrawn if a country lowers its labor laws below international standards or simply fails to meet these standards. And they can be withdrawn if a government directly violates internationally accepted workers rights that might not be protected under their laws.

Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and the GSP, the right to file a complaint for violations of these rights is extended beyond just governments and to civil societies. But again, with this agreement, we exclude all of that.

Under this agreement, governments will only have to enforce whatever laws they have on their own books at any given time. They will not be held to any international standards. That means the ocean floor is the limit, with respect to how weak these laws can get.

Moreover, the lack of an objective standard here is troubling because it could create a race-to-the-bottom mentality where investors and companies play governments, one against the other, seeking lower labor standards in a quest for increased profits. That type of situation, in my view, could wreak havoc on civil societies in these countries, and it could also cost American workers their jobs.

A second facet of the labor rights question deals with the issue of enforcement.

As I said earlier, for the most part, CAFTA-DR nations have laws on their books. But they face a lack of resources, as well as domestic political opposition from influential people, which prevent them from enforcing these laws.

Again, this is not about pointing the finger or accusing these government leaders of malice toward their workers. I don't believe that. I don't believe that is the case here either. I believe they actually want to do the right thing. I know these leaders. I respect them. But our neighbors to the south are democratic countries. And as in all democracies, they have to deal with powerful opposition interests.

The question remains, will CAFTA-DR help these nations overcome this opposition to enforcement? In my view, it doesn't go nearly far enough to do so. That is why I met with Ambassador Portman yesterday to see if we could strengthen the prospects for enforcement. Laws that can't be enforced might as well not be there.

The administration seems to hold the view that support for expanded trade and economic growth is incompatible with advocating core labor standards in developing countries. But, in fact, experts in this area from the well-respected Institute for International Economics have concluded that ``core labor standards support sustainable and broadly shared political, social, and economic development.'' The operative word being ``shared.''

Let me say clearly I believe this agreement is fixable. I wish it could have been fixed. Ambassador Portman and I met. We exchanged letters. We worked hard yesterday to try and see if we couldn't strengthen this agreement with respect to enforcement. What we sought was the following, exactly what exists in the Cambodian Agreement that was negotiated by the Clinton administration and renewed by the Bush administration, to their credit. There we said that the International Labor Organization ought to be able to make site visits to actually go to plants and industries to see whether the labor standards were being upheld. Under CAFTA-DR, all they can do is go to the labor ministries and ask them whether the laws are being enforced. Obviously, in most of these countries the labor ministries are political appointees. They are not likely to be critical of their own government's efforts. By not having any standard which all countries must meet, each country will be able to set the floor. When they do so, of course, the competition to have a lower floor to attract more industry from outside the country lowers the living standards for the very people I have described who are living under some of the worst conditions anywhere in the world.

I am deeply troubled by this. I so much wanted to be for this agreement. I care so much about this region and what happens to these people. I would like nothing more than to be standing here today urging my colleagues to be supportive of this. This is not a minor point. It goes right to the heart of what we try to do with trade agreements; that is, to reduce these barriers, expand markets for our businesses and industries, create opportunities for additional job creation, and also to create and generate wealth in these countries so that in the long term, we can produce high value products, high value services, that are affordable in these countries.

So trade agreements have worked both ways--expanding economic opportunities for ourselves and creating wealth and opportunity in the countries with whom we trade. That is why I supported NAFTA and the Jordanian Free Trade Agreement and others. Indeed, I have supported far more of these agreements than I have opposed. But with CAFTA-DR, we are stepping backwards in a region of the world that needs a commitment to lift up the quality of life for its citizens.

I am not suggesting we could do it solely through this agreement, but you can begin to make a difference in these people's lives by insisting that they have to meet some minimum standards.

This is what we should be saying: We want to do business in your country. We want to accept your products. We want to trade with you. But the small price we ask is that you have some basic standards for the people who are going to do the jobs.

When you eliminate that, then you invite the kind of problems we are going to see with these people.

I am terribly disappointed today. I had hoped I would be able to support this agreement. I wanted to be a part of this effort. I respect immensely the President inviting us down and talking about this. I raised the issue with him. I also respect Rob Portman. He is a good man. Obviously, he has the difficulty of dealing with all 535 of us, in both this Chamber and the other, to try and get the votes to pass these agreements. This agreement is probably going to be passed tonight. My hope was that we would be able to broaden the specter along bipartisan support for this agreement both here and in the other Chamber. Unfortunately, I don't believe that will be the case.

Let me say to my colleagues: Even with the adoption of this agreement and the absence of these labor standards I feel so strongly about, it is my intention, through appropriate vehicles, to condition aid and other assistance on improving these standards in these countries. I will find one way or the other to try and improve them, to insist that these countries, in exchange for getting the kind of access to our markets, at the very least they ought to be required to improve the quality of life and the standards under which many of these people work.

We stand today at a moment of great opportunity and great risk for this hemisphere. The past two decades have witnessed the rise of democratic governments in nations that have long languished under dictatorship of left or right. But this progress is endangered. Globalization and free trade promise to bring historic levels of prosperity to nations north and south. But economic and social conditions for millions of men and women continue to lag dangerously far behind, threatening what we have worked so hard to build. Through well-crafted trade agreements, the United States can enhance its own prosperity and lift other nations on a stable and democratic path.

That is why I am so disappointed the administration wasn't able to explicitly support the efforts to give the ILO a greater role in the monitoring and verification process. I believe that in doing so, we would have significantly strengthened this agreement, especially given the troubled history of the region and the potential for mutual prosperity that a CAFTA-DR agreement held for all. Unfortunately, the agreement before us won't do that.

Last night I sent Ambassador Portman a letter detailing proposals that have already been adopted in other agreements. This is not breaking new ground. I appreciate Ambassador Portman's response today in the letter he wrote back to me, but I regret that his letter included no real concrete commitment that the U.S. Government would guarantee the implementation that I am requesting--specifically, that the ILO would be granted unfettered access to workplaces, permitted to establish mechanisms for receiving and investigating matters related to ILO labor standards, to make private recommendations to worker and employer organizations and appropriate officials within each government, and to issue periodic public reports of its findings on matters of concern.

Therefore, I am left to conclude that instead of breaking new ground and raising standards, the CAFTA-DR agreement is a step backwards from existing law. That fact saddens me deeply. This agreement will create a weaker set of standards that could very well negatively impact the people of this region, negatively impact American workers and our national security, and weaken democracy in these countries.

Regrettably, I won't be able to support this agreement when it comes to a vote. I say this with a very heavy heart.

But I will make a promise to the American people and to the people of these countries that I will work vigorously to ensure as we move forward with this agreement, workers' rights are protected and new avenues are explored for pursuing this goal. I hope at the end of the day, with all of the interests in this agreement, that our keeping the light shining on labor rights issues will make this agreement

work. Because even though I can't support this agreement in its current form, I truly want to it work for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment No. 1082 provides $800,000 for the NFB-NEWSLINE Service in the Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped program in the Library of Congress as a provision of H.R. 2985, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006.

The NFB-NEWSLINE service is a telephone-based electronic audio newspaper service developed by the National Foundation of the Blind, NFB. The Service ensures that newspapers are directly accessible to blind readers at the same time when print publications are released.

In 1931, Congress established a national Books for the Blind program within the Nation's premier library, the Library of Congress, to be administered by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, NLS. The Books for the Blind program continues to be the principal source of Braille and audio books and magazines for blind adults. At present, NFB-NEWSLINE offers over 150 newspapers and magazines daily.

The ultimate goal of the Service is to ensure that blind-patrons have the same opportunity for access to daily newspapers as sighted-patrons. The following statistics support the need: Approximately 57,000 blind Americans are enrolled in elementary, secondary or post-secondary education programs. NFB-NEWSLINE helps them be more informed about current events. Approximately 300,000 blind Americans are of working age. NFB-NEWSLINE supports them in numerous employment activities. Approximately 700,000 blind Americans are seniors, age 65 and older. NFB-NEWSLINE helps them keep up with current events in their community.

In 2001, Congress first appropriated funding to establish the NFB- NEWSLINE service in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. Congress subsequently appropriated funds in two Legislative Branch appropriations bills to pay the telecommunications costs for the electronic service. The annual telecommunications costs, including inflation adjustments, are approximately $850,000.

Telecommunications service is the only cost for which a regular and continuing appropriation is needed from the Federal Government. Ongoing operation of the Service is paid for by State sponsors, including public libraries and rehabilitation agencies, to help defray the telecommunications costs associated with the dissemination of audio information to eligible individuals.

Many of you know that equal access for persons with disabilities has long been a personal and family goal. My sister is an American with a disability. She is a member of the National Foundation of the Blind.

The current appropriation will be expended at the end of 2005, making it essential to provide funding in fiscal year 2006. The funding level of $800,000 will ensure that the Service continues in fiscal year 2006 and that all persons with disabilities will continue to have equal access to information.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of Marcia Lieberman, who passed away on June 26 at the age of 90.

Marcia was the mother of my dear friend and our colleague, Joe Lieberman, with whom I have had the pleasure of serving in this body for 16 years. She was born in 1914, lived through the Depression, and ran her husbands business when he left to serve in World War II. She was active in senior centers and Connecticut Jewish groups. She campaigned with her son many times and served as his liaison to seniors. Her commitment to her community was constant and selfless. But biographical information alone cannot adequately describe this remarkable woman. Her legacy is an entire life lived well, a long string of simple moments of kindness and love.

It is possible to get a glimpse of that character in the anecdotes that have been told about her--the care packages to reporters, the quips to Larry King, and the matchmaking services offered to a traveling reporter. But it is more clearly illuminated in the warm memories of those of us who knew her, which were echoed in the beautiful eulogies that Senator Lieberman and his children gave on Tuesday of this week at her funeral service.

As they so eloquently said, and as all her friends knew, Marcia strongly believed in the importance of family and was openly warm and caring with everyone she met. During Marcia's funeral service, the rabbi asked how many people in the audience believed they were her friend. Everyone raised their hand. He then asked who believed they were one of her best friends. Again, everyone raised their hand. She had an uncanny ability to make people feel close to her. This quality, among others, put people at ease and gave them confidence in themselves.

Marcias loving nature often took the form of great strength and courage. She insisted that the members of her family take care of each other and live ethically. She was witty and saw the joy and humor in life until the very end. Even in the last few weeks of her life, she maintained her well-known strength and resilience, which helped her family through this difficult time.

She was a beautiful person, whose humor, kindness, and love were infectious for those who met her. She will be dearly missed.

I offer my deepest condolences to Joe, his sisters Rietta and Ellen, the whole Lieberman family, and to the countless others whose lives were enriched by Marcia Lieberman.

Mr. President, I wish to honor a constituent of mine, William Allen, who was recently named the 2005 Citizen of the Year by the town of Montville, CT.

Mr. Allen is a lifelong resident of Montville, a town of about 18,000 people located along the Thames River, between Norwich and New London in Southeastern Connecticut. He served his country in the U.S. Marines from 1961 to 1963 before receiving an honorable discharge. After he returned home, he worked in construction for 6 years before starting his own business, W.R. Allen and Co. Contracting, in 1969.

Today, in addition to the contracting firm, William Allen owns Allen Carpets, Hawthorne Woodworking Co., and Plumfire Mechanical and Bathliners, all based in Montville.

As a good businessman, Mr. Allen could have gone anywhere and been a success. But he chose to stay in the town where he was raised and make it a better place for all of its citizens.

William Allen's impact on Montville is not limited to his businesses. He has been an active participant in numerous community organizations, including the Montville Youth Center, the Senior Citizen's Center, the Montville Little League, the Boy Scouts, and Montville's police and fire departments.

There are many committed citizens such as William Allen across our Nation--people who work hard each and every day and then give of themselves to their communities to improve the lives of others. I believe we would do well to recognize their achievements more often, and I applaud the Town of Montville for bestowing this well-deserved honor on Mr. Allen.

Once again, I congratulate William Allen on this wonderful award, and I wish him, his wife Rosalyn, their children, and their grandchildren all the best.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in memory of a distinguished public servant and a dear friend, Frank Mancuso, who passed away on June 19 at the age of 82.

Frank was born in Italy, but he grew up and lived in and around Hartford and Enfield, CT. Although he worked as a union leader and served as a decorated member of the Army Air Corps in the campaign in the Pacific during World War II, he was most well known to the citizens of Connecticut for his dedicated work in public office and the

humanity with which he fulfilled his duties.

In 1963, with no prior political experience, Frank was elected as the first mayor of Enfield. Four years later, he rebounded from a short political setback to lead the reform ``Eight Slate.'' They campaigned on the promise to build the schools and city infrastructure that Enfield needed not only to keep pace with its recent population explosion, but also to ensure its continued growth in the future. Frank held true to his campaign promises and served as mayor until he was selected in 1975 by Gov. Ella Grasso to be the State director of civil preparedness. The self-styled ``master of disaster'' worked under the subsequent administrations of William O'Neill and Lowell Weicker, Jr.

Frank loved politics, but he was a pragmatic public servant who went out of his way to build a consensus when it was best for the community. He was an upbeat and straight-shooting leader with a disarming sense of humor. In the eyes of his colleagues, it was Frank's guidance that led Enfield to be named as one of the country's best small cities.

Frank, who was born in Italy in 1922, attributed his love of democracy to dark memories of Mussolini's fascist dictatorship. But it is clear that his service was equally motivated by a commitment to his community. When Frank retired from statewide politics in 1992, he remained connected through activities such as chairing building committees at local schools in Enfield. A recent editorial in the Hartford Courant rightly called him ``Enfield's Ambassador'' and the town's ``chief cheerleader.''

The residents of Enfield honored Frank by naming a park after him, but he has already left his mark throughout the town, which grew up under his tireless leadership, and on his friends and colleagues, whom he touched with his selflessness.

I offer my deepest condolences to Frank's children Donna, Douglas, and Francis, to the entire Mancuso family, to the people of Enfield, and to the countless others whose lives were enriched by Frank Mancuso.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate yesterday and missed rollcall votes 158 through 160. There were two reasons for my absence. First, I attended a memorial service for Mrs. Marcia Lieberman, the mother of our colleague, Joseph Lieberman. Second, I attended memorial services for Robert Killian Sr., the former Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, a close friend to me and my family. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote No. 158: ``Yea''; rollcall vote No. 159: ``Nay''; rollcall vote No. 160: ``yea''.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to use such time as I consume from the time under the control of Senator Baucus.

Mr. President, first of all, I commend our colleague from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus, the ranking member from Montana, and the other members of the Finance Committee for their efforts on behalf of the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, as it is known by most who follow this debate and discussion.

I voted for the motion to proceed. I would have preferred we had a little more time. I realize we are moving rather quickly on this legislation. I hoped we would have a few more days to work on this legislation, but obviously that is not the case. We are moving ahead with the 20 hours of debate under the procedures as established by the Congress to have a fast-track procedure when dealing with trade agreements. So we are given the time we have to debate and discuss these matters.

I am going to take advantage of this time and lay out for my colleagues and others my interests and my concerns about this matter.

First of all, let me say, as someone who has spent almost a quarter of a century in this body, I have dedicated a great deal of my service to my interest in Latin America, my interest in Central America, and the Caribbean. That interest arose almost 40 years ago when, as a recent graduate from college, I joined John Kennedy's Peace Corps and traveled to the Dominican Republic, where I spent the next 2 years as a young man in the mountains of what is called the Cordillera Central of the Dominican Republic not far from the Haitian border as a Peace Corps volunteer. I have a deep, deep affection for the people of the Dominican Republic, the people of Haiti, and the people of the Caribbean and Central America.

My oldest brother Tom was a professor at Georgetown University for 27 years and taught Latin American diplomatic history and also was our Ambassador to the nation of Uruguay and the nation of Costa Rica. Two others of my brothers studied in Mexico. My sisters speak Spanish. My mother did as well. There has been a strong interest in my family in Latin America for many years.

My strong hope and desire, as I rise this evening to talk about this agreement, is to be able to be supportive when the vote occurs at the end of the 20 hours of debate. I think it is important we try to do everything we can to improve the quality of the lives of the

people who live in these countries. They have been through an awful lot just during my tenure here in this body.

For those who were Members of this body back 25 years ago, 24 years ago, we had some long and extensive debates about the political events in Central America. Civil wars raged. In Guatemala, the civil war raged for decades, as a matter of fact, long before I arrived in the Senate. You had civil wars raging in El Salvador, the civil war that went on in Nicaragua. The economic difficulties in Honduras were tremendous.

There has been political turmoil in the Dominican Republic. In fact, the year before I arrived in the Dominican Republic as a Peace Corps volunteer, there had been a minirevolution there, which caused Lyndon Johnson to send the USS Boxer off to the coast of the Dominican Republic. The Marines went down in 1965 and, in fact, were still there in 1966, when I arrived there as a Peace Corps volunteer, as a young man, to work in the mountains of that country.

Also, natural disasters have struck. I cannot recount the number of times they have hit the Dominican Republic and Haiti over the last number of years. Hardly a year goes by that some tragedy does not occur in these countries. Certainly, hurricanes have swept across the Island of Hispaniola, which is home to both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. I know my colleagues will recall the mud slides in Haiti, where literally thousands have lost their lives.

And then there are the repeated hurricanes that have hit Central America. I recall going down, in early 1993, after one of those hurricanes hit Nicaragua, to work with then-Vice President Gore's wife, Tipper Gore, trying to clear mud out of schools and impoverished communities. Bridges were wiped out. Crops were lost. The country was devastated.

To put it in brief, without going into long detail, these five countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic--Haiti is not included in this agreement. I regret that. I wish we were doing something more about Haiti. This body, a year ago, unanimously adopted a concessionary agreement with Haiti. Unfortunately, the other body refused to take up the matter. It could have made a difference, in my view, to provide some real assistance to people who are so desperately in need of help, the island nation of Haiti. It is one of the great tragic cases in the world, let alone in this hemisphere, the conditions under which people live there.

I had hoped we might bring up that concessionary agreement again, either as a part of or in conjunction with this CAFTA agreement. The irony, in a way, if this agreement is adopted, is that we will be providing some meaningful assistance to the Dominican Republic, which inhabits two-thirds of the Island of Hispaniola, and doing virtually nothing for one-third of the island where the most desperate conditions prevail--in Haiti. But hope springs eternal, and I hope, before this Congress adjourns, we will be able to convince the other body that there is a reason to try to do what we can for Haiti.

But back to the matter at hand, and that is this agreement affecting the Central American nations and the Dominican Republic. The people of these nations deserve our help, deserve something that will improve the quality of their lives. If that does not happen, quite candidly, what you are going to see is what people have done historically. They will express their feelings with their feet. They will walk. They will move. They will migrate. In many instances, I presume they will come to this country however they can make it here. We welcome, obviously, immigration. But a flood of immigration, which can occur as a result of economic conditions, in this country is something we ought to be mindful of as we consider the implications of this proposal.

So again, my hope is to be able to be supportive.

Let me outline, if I may, briefly, what my interests are. I had a very good meeting today with Ambassador Portman. I did not know him terribly well before, but I was very impressed with him and the team. We spent about an hour in my office discussing this matter. We had a very good meeting at the White House not too many days ago. President Bush, very graciously, invited a group of us down--I gather he has done that on several occasions now--along with people who are not committed to this agreement, to listen to various ideas. I commend him for that. I think there is a true desire to try to build strong support for this agreement in this body and in the other, if we can.

So if I can, Mr. President, very briefly, I would like to lay out my concerns, what I am doing, what I have done today, what I am doing this evening, and what I will do tomorrow morning in anticipation of a vote occurring either tomorrow or on Friday, with my strong, fervent hope that I will be able to support this agreement. But let me lay out my concerns. As you know, I have long been concerned, as I mentioned, and involved in all aspects of our policies with respect to the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic. For those of us who were serving in this Chamber in the 1980s, we all remember the dark days and bitter debates about events in the region at that time and the U.S. response to them. Happily, those dark days are now behind us. Today, the situation, if you will, in Central America is a far more positive and fruitful one. The debate is, of course, how to enhance our economic relations with the region in a manner that benefits the United States and our neighbors.

I believe there are real possibilities for the CAFTA-Dominican Republic agreement being a vehicle for enhancing those relations and strengthening democratic institutions throughout the region. But I also believe that, even at this late date, there need to be certain understandings and clarifications if, in fact, we are going to achieve the very goals the CAFTA-Dominican Republic agreement lays out. Those clarifications relate to certain aspects of the agreement, if it is truly going to live up to the expectations the parties have set forth in it.

Those of us who want to advance respect and adherence to core internationally recognized labor standards were somewhat disappointed that the agreement is a weak instrument for doing so. In fact, it is weaker than current provisions under the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, which currently links unilateral trade benefits from the United States to the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act-eligible countries to international workers' rights.

I welcome the efforts of Senator Bingaman, our colleague from New Mexico, to strengthen the capacity of these countries to effectively enforce and uphold internationally recognized labor rights. I believe the provision agreed to by the administration, to provide an additional $3 million to fund the International Labor Organization programs in CAFTA-DR countries, is a step in the right direction.

Ambassador Rob Portman has committed, on behalf of the Bush administration, to provide these moneys to the International Labor Organization so the organization can monitor and verify progress in the Central American and Dominican Republic Governments' efforts to improve labor law enforcement and working conditions.

To strengthen the effectiveness of the ILO in carrying out its work in the region, I believe there needs to be a clear understanding, before we vote on the CAFTA-DR agreement, of exactly what would be entailed in those ILO programs if they are going to be effective. That is why I met today with Ambassador Portman and have contacted the CAFTA-DR Ambassadors from these countries to describe what I believe is needed to make the ILO initiative meaningful.

Let me spell it out, if I can, very briefly. And it is not unreasonable and does not require renegotiation in any way.

I have requested answers in writing from the affected CAFTA-DR Governments as to whether jointly or severally they would each welcome and support ILO efforts to improve labor enforcement and working conditions in their countries in relationship to the implementation of the CAFTA-DR agreement. We would support and welcome an active role for the ILO representatives and their countries, including acceptance of the principle that ILO representatives would be granted unfettered access to workplaces, be permitted to establish mechanisms for receiving and investigating

matters related to core ILO labor standards, make private recommendations to worker and employer organizations and appropriate officials within each Government, as well as issue periodic public reports of its findings on matters of concern related to the enforcement of core ILO international labor standards as specified in the International Labor Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its followup adopted by the International Labor Conference in 1998.

I am not breaking new ground here at all. In fact, what I have just described is included in other labor and other trade agreements, most specifically the trade agreement with Cambodia which was renewed by the Bush administration only recently, adhering to the very principles that were negotiated under the Clinton administration. So this is something that has already been accepted.

Let me tell you why these provisions are important and why I think they help what we are trying to achieve with this trade agreement. I am hopeful the administration and the agreement governments will find this clarification useful and acceptable. If so, I believe the CAFTA-DR agreement will have made an important contribution to strengthening democracy in the region and improving the daily lives of their citizens. I await word from them in the coming hours.

As I said, I very much want to be able too support this agreement. But I also want to have some confidence that I will be helping to raise the living standards of American and CAFTA-Dominican Republic workers and not be an accomplice to a rush to the bottom in weakening working conditions in either the United States or elsewhere in the region. Let me be clear that we aren't somehow raising the bar on the issue of respect for core labor rights. Existing trade preference programs for the region provide that the President should at least take into account the extent to which beneficiary countries provide internationally recognized workers rights.

As currently written, the CAFTA-DR agreement would weaken standards these countries have been living under through the Caribbean Basin Initiative and Generalized System of Preferences. Instead of asking them to do more with the CAFTA-DR agreement, we are asking them to do less. Moreover, currently the trade benefits can be withdrawn in these other countries if a country lowers its labor laws below international standards or simply fails to meet those standards. And they can be withdrawn if a government directly violates internationally accepted workers rights that might not be protected under their laws. But this will not be the case under CAFTA and the Dominican Republic.

Let me reemphasize that. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative agreements, we established very well for all involved that International Labor Organizations labor standards, which are not terribly high standards, ought to be enforced collectively. The irony would be that we are now moving away from the very agreement that has been beneficial to the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries. In fact, some of these countries are obviously under that agreement now, and these standards would be lowered, not enhanced, at a time we have been trying to improve conditions.

This is also important to us from an economic standpoint. It has always been our goal with trade agreements with less developed countries to try to create wealth, to be wealth producing in our trade agreements. Obviously, this is critically important in the long term because our higher value goods and our higher value services need to have markets in these underdeveloped countries. If there is not wealth creation in these nations, then how will they ever afford to buy the products and the services that are higher cost? We have always tried to, as part of our trade agreements, improve those standards with a long-term vision that we would be a beneficiary as a result of wealth creation. And also it helps to improve tremendously living standards in the countries with whom we are trading.

Moreover, the lack of an objective standard is troubling because it could create a race-to-the-bottom mentality where investors and companies play governments against each other seeking lower labor standards in a quest for increased profits. That type of situation would wreak havoc on civil society in these countries. At a time when we are trying to promote more civil societies, to strengthen democratic institutions, it could have the opposite effect. It could cost also American workers their jobs. By having one standard that applies to all, you avoid the race to the bottom which could occur.

Let me make the point. Under this agreement each country would set its own labor standard, whatever they decided. They are required to enforce that labor standard. But there is no requirement of what that labor standard ought to be. For those who have followed events at all in these countries and have great affection for them, you don't need to have a PhD to understand there is a lot of difficulty when it comes to labor standards. That is why we have insisted on the ILO standards across the board generally, to try to maintain a more decent level. When you leave it up to each one of these countries to set their own standards and then only require that they meet them, you are obviously inviting the kind of race to the bottom I have just described.

For the most part, CAFTA and DR nations have laws on their books, but they face a lack of resources and domestic political opposition from influential people which prevents them from enforcing these laws. This statement was expressed by U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman at a June 9, 2005 speech, only a few days ago, that he gave before the Hispanic Alliance for Free Trade. I commend him for his speech. Let me quote it, if I may. In that speech Ambassador Portman said:

The ILO study demonstrated that the laws on the books are

not the main issue. The major problem is that enforcement of

those laws clearly needs improvement.

Ambassador Portman went on to say:

You can read the State Department's annual human rights

report and quickly conclude that enforcement needs to be

improved. You can read a recent White Paper published by the

Labor Ministers of Central America, who themselves

acknowledge that enforcement needs to be improved.

These are good statements. They are strong statements, and I agree with our ambassador when he makes them. That is all I am suggesting with the language that I have submitted to Ambassador Portman and to the Central American countries earlier this evening. In my opinion, enforcement problems are not a result of malice on the part of these leaders. I believe that these leaders and these countries want to do the right thing. But I would remind my colleagues that our neighbors to the South are democratic countries. As in all democracies, they have to deal with powerful opposition interests.

The administration seems to hold the view that the support for expanded trade and economic growth is incompatible with advocating core labor standards in developing countries. I believe the opposite is the case. In fact, when we have insisted upon better labor standards, we end up with a far better trading environment. In case after case after case, when we have insisted on stronger ILO standards, we have had a better trading relationship. When we have not, it has gone in the opposite direction. In fact, experts for the well-respected Institute for International Economics have concluded that ``core labor standards support sustainable and broadly shared political, social, and economic development.''

The operative word here is ``shared,'' shared among citizens, not simply a handful of people who have the resources and the political influence to effect them.

So if this agreement is fixable--and I believe it is--it could be a win-win proposition. I believe it can be, and I hope the administration and the CAFTA-DR governments will welcome this fleshing out of the ILO role.

Again, I commend Senator Bingaman and Rob Portman and the administration for being willing to sit down at a late hour and to welcome ideas about how we might make this a stronger agreement. I think the votes are probably here to pass an agreement even without these suggestions, but I think it is a better trade agreement if we have the kind of ILO standards I have talked about.

Again, I emphasize, I very much want to support this agreement. I think it

would make a difference in the long run, not only for our own country but also for these struggling democracies in Central America and the Dominican Republic. These are good friends. They have been through an awful lot. I mentioned earlier the political turmoil and strife, the loss of life through civil wars, the natural disasters that have crippled them. They deserve better. They are not going to get it through foreign aid. I know that. But they could get it through an improved trading relationship, by lowering barriers and working cooperatively. My hope is we will do it. There is only a small amount of trade between ourselves and these countries. It amounts to very little in terms of overall trade dollars. But I think we set a standard that could be used throughout the region in the coming years.

My hope--even at this late hour, without in any way requiring that we reopen the process for negotiation--is that by just requiring that the ILO would be allowed to actually visit sites in these countries, not just the labor ministries, which is what the agreement does right now-- under the agreement, the ILO would go to the labor ministry and say: Are you complying or not complying. Obviously, we know what the answer will be. You are asking the very people to discipline themselves. Obviously, they are not likely to conclude that they are not complying. By doing what we did in the Cambodian Free Trade Agreement, in permitting the ILO inspectors to actually have site visits to determine whether the laws are being enforced and then, of course, to be able to work with employers as well as employees to try to fix the problem that exists there, we do a lot to strengthen this agreement.

Again, I don't think it is asking too much. It goes a long way to making this a better and stronger agreement. It will do many good things for the people of these countries. I urge the administration and these CAFTA countries with whom we have been communicating today to consider this language offered. I have had a rather positive response so far from several of them, not all of them. My hope is that Ambassador Portman, on behalf of the administration, would be willing to accept this additional language to be included in correspondence along the lines that was provided to Senator Bingaman.

I have drafted a letter to Ambassador Portman that outlines what I have described here this evening. I am not going to include that letter in the Record. I would rather Ambassador Portman have a chance to see it before it becomes a public document for him to take a measure of it and to let me know whether something might be done along the lines we described here. I look forward tomorrow to addressing this issue again during further debate. My strong hope would be to be able to stand before this body and to offer my unconditional support for this agreement. I believe what we have offered here is a reasonable proposal, one that could be included in this agreement and one that will allow us to have a strong vote.

My hope is it would convince some of our colleagues in the other Chamber who have expressed strong reservations about this agreement to come onboard. Most of the reservations have been focused on the labor standard issue. Again, I think we can strengthen that and convince many of our colleagues to support this agreement. The people of these little countries, desperately poor people, deserve better. If democracy is going to work here, if economic opportunity is to occur, then we ought to be doing more.

We have trade agreements with big powerful countries. Too often we allow too much to slip by and to allow these countries to take advantage of us. These small countries deserve some help and support. We spent $5 billion in the 1980s financing and underwriting a part of the civil war that occurred there. Thousands lost their lives. A great deal of our treasury was expended in Central America. It is time we expended some effort to see these people have a chance for a better life.

I think this agreement can do it. A few changes that we have suggested could help us achieve that goal. I look forward to that opportunity occurring with a decision by the administration and the CAFTA countries.

Mr. President, I would like to address the Senate on another matter. I want to be careful to make sure no one else wants to be heard on this matter.

Let me inquire of the Chair, would it be appropriate for this Member to ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, two days ago the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider overturning contempt citations against two journalists, Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. This decision by the Court effectively paves the way for these two reporters to be sent, possibly, to jail. Yesterday the District of Columbia Circuit Court upheld the convictions of four additional journalists for contempt. They may appeal to the Supreme Court, but they are justifiably concerned that the Supreme Court will decline to consider their case, just as the Court declined to consider the Miller and Cooper cases the other day.

What did those journalists do to deserve criminal contempt convictions? Nothing more than their jobs, in my view. That is, they did nothing more than refuse to reveal to law enforcement officials the identity of sources to whom they had pledged confidentiality.

Thomas Jefferson once said that were he to have to choose between a free country and a free press, he would select the latter.

He understood--as did the other Founding Fathers--that nothing was more important to a free people than the free flow of information. An informed citizenry is the first requirement of a free, self-governing people.

Armed with knowledge, our people can govern themselves and hold accountable their elected leaders and other high public and private officials.

Today, that principle of a well-informed electorate holding their leaders accountable is at risk.

Along with the 6 journalists I have just mentioned, there are 20 or more others who have been convicted or face conviction for protecting the confidentiality of their sources. This is an unusually high number by historical standards.

Senator Lugar and I have introduced legislation, S. 340, the Free Flow of Information Act. We are joined in the other body by Representatives Spence and Boucher. The purpose of this legislation is to protect the free flow of information that is so essential to maintaining our free society.

This legislation is not about conferring special rights and privileges on members of the Fourth Estate. It is, rather, intended to protect the right of all citizens to inform and be informed--including by speaking with journalists in confidence.

The bill is hardly radical in concept. It is based on Justice Department guidelines and on statutes that currently exist in 31 States and the District of Columbia. While those State and DC statutes would not be preempted, the bill would establish a uniform Federal standard for Federal cases involving journalists and their sources. It would balance the legitimate and often compelling interest in law enforcement with the critical need in a free society to protect the free flow of information.

It would achieve this balance by protecting the confidentiality of sources--while at the same time allowing courts to compel journalists to produce information about wrongdoing if that information is essential to an investigation and cannot be obtained from other sources.

Imagine for a moment what would happen if citizens with knowledge of wrongdoing could not come forward and speak confidentially with members of the press. Serious journalism would virtually cease to exist. Wrongdoing would not be uncovered. We would never have learned about the crimes known as ``Watergate'' but for the willingness of sources to speak in confidence with reporters.

My colleagues, when journalists are hauled into court by prosecutors, when they are threatened with fines and imprisonment if they do not divulge the

sources of their information, then we are entering dangerous territory for a democracy, because that is when citizens will fear persecution simply for stepping out of the shadows to expose wrongdoing. When that happens, the information our citizens need to govern will be degraded-- making it more and more difficult to hold accountable those in power.

And when the public's right to know is threatened, then all of the other liberties that we hold dear are threatened.

We are under no illusions as to the difficulty of our task in advancing this legislation.

We know that there are those who have a pavlovian response to words like ``reporter'' and may react negatively to this legislation. We also understand that it is critically important that we balance our Nation's compelling interest in preserving the free flow of information with its no less compelling interest in pursuing wrongdoing by criminals and others that would jeopardize the freedoms that we cherish as Americans.

Mr. President, again, I am joined by Senator Lugar and my colleagues in the House, Congressmen Spence and Boucher. We would like to see some legislation at least be debated on the floor of the Senate and possibly passed by both Houses, if we have a chance to debate this.

The fact that reporters are going to jail because of their refusal to identify confidential sources ought to raise the concerns of everyone, regardless of their ideology or politics. We all understand there is a danger in this if we lose what has been critical as part of our self- governance. This evening, with two reporters we know facing very serious jail sentences, with others who may face similar sentences, with some 20 other people who have either been convicted or presently are in the process, we think it is very important that we act in this matter. We know it is not necessarily popular. This is not about reporters, it is not about the press, it is about whether the citizenry is going to have access to information they deserve to get. It is not about protecting journalists or sources if that is the only way we can get information we need to pursue criminal prosecutions. It ought not to be the first arrow drawn out of the prosecutor's quiver trying to deal with these matters. Too often that happens. They need to work harder to get to the bottom of these cases, without dragging the reporters in front of these courts.

I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--conservatives, liberals, independents, moderates, or whatever--would be able to come together around this idea that in a free society of the 21st century the confidentiality of sources is something we ought to be willing to stand up and support. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and the leadership to put it on the calendar.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday I was necessarily absent from the Senate during final passage of H.R. 6, the Energy bill. I was attending the funeral of Mrs. Marcia Lieberman, the mother of my good friend and our colleague, Senator Lieberman. Had I been here, I would have voted for the bill, albeit with considerable reservations.

I commend the chairman and ranking member for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan bill. But let me be clear, this bill is not perfect. All things being equal, it seeks to balance the economic needs of our country with the well-being of our environment and sets out a policy to provide Americans with a reliable and affordable supply of energy.

Overall, the Senate Energy bill is a more balanced approach to energy tax policy than the House bill. It provides just under 50 percent of the tax incentives to renewable energy and energy-efficient buildings, homes and appliances. Unfortunately, the bill also provides 50 percent of tax incentives to mature industries such as oil, gas, coal and nuclear.

The bill now includes a renewable portfolio standard, by which electric utilities must generate 10 percent of their power from renewables by 2020. In the past, I voted for a higher percentage because I believe our Nation can and should use even more renewable energy. However, the bill begins a smart, economic, and environmentally friendly path for this country to take and I am pleased that the Senate acted.

For the first time, the Senate is on record in acknowledging the existence of global warming and recognizing the need to take mandatory, market-based steps to slow, stop or reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. It is a start, a baby step, but again, it puts this country on the right path and I look forward to working with my colleagues to determine the right proposals to combat these emissions. Air pollution must be reduced. Long-term exposure to toxic emissions and unhealthy air has been linked to increased risk of cancer, reduced lung function in children, and premature death of people with heart and lung disease. Asthma rates in Connecticut are over two and a half times the national average; 7.9 percent of adults and 8.9 percent of children under age 18 in Connecticut have asthma.

I am pleased the Senate included an amendment that I offered to study the

effect of electrical contaminants on the reliability of energy production systems, including nuclear power facilities. In April, 2005, the Millstone 3 nuclear power plant in Waterford, CT, automatically shut down and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, determined the cause to be a failure of a circuit card in a computerized reactor protector system. It was revealed that ``tin whiskers'' were present on the circuit card which led to the subsequent shutdown. Earlier this year, the January 10, 2005, edition of Fortune magazine had a lengthy article entitled, ``Tin Whiskers: the Next Y2K Problem?'' The article explained the seriousness of this problem.

Finally, I am just as pleased with a few items that were not included in the Senate bill. Unlike the House, this bill does not grant retroactive liability to producers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that my home State of Connecticut has already banned. I urge my colleagues to keep this provision out of the conference report. There is no explicit opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, although there are attempts to open that pristine land through other pieces of legislation. Finally, the Senate bill steers clear of removing environmental protections from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. Nor does the bill reduce environmental review for energy projects.

I am disappointed that H.R. 6 includes language to inventory the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, including what is currently covered by a 23-year moratorium. Since 1982, Congress and the executive branch have prohibited new offshore leases in the OCS. While an inventory sounds benign, it is a costly endeavor that will cause irreparable harm to our coastal waters and could well set us on a slippery slope to drilling and exploration in these environmentally sensitive areas.

I am also troubled by section 381 of the underlying Senate bill that preempts state authority and gives exclusive authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, with regard to the siting, construction or expansion of liquified natural gas terminals. I understand the need for increasing our supply of natural gas, but I have grave concerns over the process for siting LNG facilities. This hits close to home because there is a proposal to place a 1,200 foot long, 180 foot wide, 100 foot high LNG facility within Long Island Sound. FERC authority is also augmented by authorizing it to site transmission facilities in certain areas if a State fails to act within one year. Again, every State's authority is undercut by this provision.

I am deeply concerned that the bill terminates FERC's proposed rulemaking for Standard Market Design, SMD, while doing nothing to address FERC's actions with regard to Locational Installed Capacity, LICAP. My attempts to insert a simple sense of the Senate amendment to clarify that governors and utility regulators throughout New England are opposed to LICAP and FERC should take their concerns and alternative proposals into account before a final ruling in September, were refused. The theoretical purpose of LICAP is to set prices that will provide an economic incentive for construction of new generation within New England. However, as proposed by FERC, LICAP will cost ratepayers more than $14 billion over 4 years without any guarantee that new generation will be built, with no penalty for not building new generation, and with no provision for refunding payments if no generation is built. I will continue to work with my colleagues to address this unfair situation.

Finally, on the day after the price of a barrel of crude oil topped $60 for the first time, we must recognize that this Energy bill does virtually nothing to stem the tide of rising oil, gasoline, and heating oil prices. The majority defeated efforts to even urge the administration to divert oil from filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, and to release oil from the SPR through a swap program.

I urge my colleagues participating in the conference to stand firm on the will of the Senate and return an energy conference report that moves our country on the path to energy security.