Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is my understanding we are going to have 1-hour debate on the motion to proceed and Senator Leahy and myself are controlling that time. It is acceptable to me, if Senator Jeffords would like to be heard at this time, that he be recognized.

I ask that we yield 3 minutes to Senator Thomas.

Mr. President, I would like to yield 8 minutes to probably the Senator who knows more about air quality and the Clean Air Act than any of the rest of us, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.

Let him go ahead.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Delaware is in the Chamber. If he would like to go ahead, it would be acceptable.

Thank you, Mr. President.

First, let me advise everyone where we are right now. We will be having a vote at the conclusion of my remarks on the motion to proceed. Tomorrow there will be actually a vote on the resolution. And tomorrow is the significant vote. There has been a lot of talk about today's motion, but tomorrow's is very significant.

I have to say it appears to me this is highly politically charged, that we would be talking about this at this time. Of course, we have the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, as the Senator from Vermont knows. He is very diligently involved in that confirmation process. We have the catastrophe down in Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana. Yet we are taking time to do this.

I have to ask the question, Is there anyone in this Chamber who believes the President would sign legislation to repeal his own administration's rule? As the Senator from Ohio pointed out, the President has already announced he is going to veto this resolution in the event it passes. So we are not really accomplishing anything.

I have to say, this is hardly the time to discuss overturning an existing clean air regulation that relies on an approach that is proven to be effective. There were sceptics back when acid rain came along as to the cap-and-trade procedure. It has worked; we know that.

Let's look at the economics for a minute. No one has talked about that.

This resolution is intended to force the Environmental Protection Agency to impose a very costly and potentially devastating regulation in place of the existing Clean Air Mercury Rule, which relies on an already well-proven market-based approach, as I just mentioned. The current EPA approach will cut mercury emissions by 70 percent--70 percent--at an estimated cost of $2 billion. Supporters of this resolution prefer a maximum achievable control technology--MACT-- standard which is not nearly as cost effective.

Supporters also want the MACT standard to cut mercury by 90 percent. The independent Energy Information Administration has found that the implementation of a 90-percent MACT standard within 3 years would cost up to $358 billion. I did not say ``million,'' I said ``billion.''

The additional $356 billion of the MACT--which is much more than the current rule will cost--is projected to only reduce mercury deposition in the United States by about 2 percent more than the current regulation. As we can see from the chart that is behind us, 22-percent higher electricity prices and costs would be $358 billion.

A 90-percent MACT would have devastating consequences on natural gas supplies which are already in a crisis. According to the EIA, the Energy Information Administration, it could increase by 10 percent the natural gas used by utilities that are forced to fuel switch. The Senator from Ohio talked about the fact they would have to switch from coal to natural gas. I think everyone understands that would happen.

This would also cripple industries that rely on natural gas, such as the chemical industry, which has already lost 90,000 jobs since the year 2000 due in large part to the rising cost of natural gas. We have talked about that on the Senate floor. We discussed that in our committee, the EPW Committee.

This last weekend I was in Lawton, Altus, and Frederick, OK. That is in the far southwestern part of the State. The farmers down there have received through their organizations what would be the increased cost of fertilizer. One of the main components of fertilizer is natural gas. They really cannot take any more hits. So it goes far beyond just the chemical industry.

The most effective, most flexible, and least burdensome way to achieve mercury reduction is to build on the most successful part of the Clean Air Act, the acid rain program. Many Senators resisted the acid rain program, saying there would be hot spots and compliance problems, yet there have been no hot spots and, unlike with most of the Clean Air Act, virtually no enforcement problems. As the senior Senator from Vermont said in 1999:

When we were debating controls for acid rain, we heard a

lot about the enormous cost of eliminating sulfur dioxide.

But what we learned from the acid rain program is that when

you give industry a financial incentive to clean up its act,

they will find the cheapest way of doing it.

I think he was correct. That is exactly what the current rule under which we are operating does, the cap and trade, similar to the successful program that was used in acid rain. Moreover, supporters of the resolution that is under consideration assume the cap and trade mercury rule would be replaced with a 90-percent MACT rule. When the EPA first proposed the cap and trade approach last year, it also proposed a MACT approach. The MACT it proposed as complying with the law would only cut mercury emissions by 29 percent--not 90 percent, 29 percent. Yet here we have a rule that cuts mercury by 70 percent, and it costs less because it uses cap and trade. Why would the sponsors of this resolution want to get only a 29-percent reduction in mercury?

Actual deposition and its variety of sources are rarely discussed. Mercury emissions are not exclusive to powerplants. In fact, U.S. powerplants contribute but 1 percent of the global

total, according to Josef Pacyna of the Norwegian Institute of Air Research, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An enormous amount originates in Asia. More than half of mercury emissions are nationally occurring. Given that statistic, mercury will be present in the human bloodstream regardless of whether powerplants are regulated by a cap and trade emissions reduction program or the more costly but less effective MACT standard--or, for that matter, even if all powerplants and manufacturing facilities in the country were to be shut down altogether.

EPA data shows that eliminating U.S. powerplants from the mercury deposition equation would have virtually no effect on reducing actual deposition. Throughout New England, for example, the range of deposition levels would be unchanged. With or without powerplants, deposition levels are between 10 and 15 micrograms per square meter in the overwhelming majority of the area. Where there is a reduction, the amount is negligible.

These four charts created by the EPA using state-of-the-art computer modeling tell the story. As you can see in chart No. 5, throughout the country mercury deposition from all sources ranges from as low as 5 to 10 micrograms, up to more than 20 micrograms per square meter. The next chart, in contrast, shows that powerplants contribute less than 1 microgram per square meter for most of the country, including virtually the entire United States. Nonetheless, it is true that in most of the East, powerplants are responsible for 1 to 10 micrograms per square meter of the deposition. In a small region of the country, they cause as much as 10 to 20 micrograms. That is why the EPA has issued its regulation.

The next chart, however, is revealing. With the EPA's rule, powerplants will contribute less than 1 microgram in the vast majority of the country and less than 5 micrograms anywhere else. Clearly, the EPA rule is effective. Yet despite the effectiveness of the EPA rule, some are advocating overturning a 70-percent emission reduction in the hopes of eking out a slightly greater reduction of 90 percent.

This last chart, No. 8, completes the story. Even if all powerplants in the country were shut down, mercury deposition would be at least 5 to 10 micrograms; that is, if we shut down all powerplants. All we are addressing now is powerplants, and a lot of people are deceived into thinking that powerplants is where you get your problem with mercury. That is not it. One percent of the total is in powerplants. Even if all powerplants in the country were shut down, mercury deposition would be at least 5 to 10 micrograms. In half the country, it is 10 to 15 micrograms. In a significant portion of the country, it ranges from 15 to more than 20 micrograms.

Look at this chart. Now go back to chart 3. It is incredible that some Senators are willing to roll back EPA's current rule when deposition from powerplants will be negligible compared to other sources. EPA believes we should act now to reduce emissions of mercury from the powerplants so we can achieve the progress you see in chart No. 7. Repealing the section 111 rule would be a step backward in our efforts to regulate mercury emissions from powerplants. It would create enormous uncertainty for the States. Keep in mind that prior to 6 months ago, when the President came out with a cap and trade restriction on mercury, we had no restriction on mercury in powerplants. It was nonexistent. In the absence of the mercury rule, there will be no Federal regulation of mercury from existing powerplants, at least in the foreseeable future. Repealing EPA's rule would roll back the 70-percent reductions required by the agency and eliminate incentives for the development of new mercury-specific control technologies.

It is not appropriate for Congress to address this issue. The very people who claim that EPA acted improperly have asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to review the EPA's action to determine if their actions were proper or improper. The court would thoroughly review the legal and factual basis for the EPA's determination. There is no reason for Congress to interfere with this process. Congress can take affirmative action on mercury emissions by passing the Clear Skies legislation.

We went through this. We have been working for 2 years to get the President's Clear Skies legislation passed. Clear Skies legislation mandates a 70-percent reduction in SOX, NOX, and in mercury. And for some reason those individuals who claim to be concerned about the environment would rather have no mandated reduction at all. We have the opportunity now to do that. Clear Skies cuts mercury emissions from the power section by 70 percent. The President's Clear Skies legislation is a more effective, long-term mechanism to achieve large scale national reductions of not only mercury but sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Clear Skies legislation applies nationwide and is modeled on the highly successful acid rain program, a program many people have said was not going to work, was not going to be effective. Yet we all now realize it was effective.

We are not talking about just mercury. We are talking about sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide. I believe it would be totally irresponsible to somehow roll back the first attempt that we have to regulate mercury in powerplants. Keep in mind, prior to 6 months ago, it was not regulated at all. That is what this is all about.

Tonight is a vote on the motion to proceed. I don't care about the motion to proceed. Let's go ahead and vote in favor of that. Tomorrow is the main vote. That is a significant vote. I think we need to proceed to that vote tomorrow.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 20.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the report. At the time of filing of the report, the statement was unavailable. The statement has since been received by the committee. I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the report. At the time of filing of the report, the statement was unavailable. The statement has since been received by the committee. I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the report. At the time of filing of the report, the statement was unavailable. The statement has since been received by the committee. I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 3), and ask for its immediate consideration.

I understand we have 15 minutes divided evenly between the majority and minority, and the Senator from Arizona has up to 30 minutes.

I ask now to recognize the Senator from Arizona for up to 30 minutes.

Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator from Arizona, are you yielding back your time or just yielding the floor?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his persistence in advocating on behalf of steel grid reinforced concrete decking as a way of modernizing and strengthening our Nation's bridges. Be assured that it was my intention to assist this technology gain greater prominence among transportation officials at the national, State, and local level. I understand my good friend from Pennsylvania's enthusiasm for this technology and desire to expand its use. I look forward to working with Senator Santorum to educate our colleagues and transportation officials about the vast benefits of this technology.

exise tax on highway vehicles

Madam President, today the Senate is taking the final step in a very long, and at times frustrating but overall rewarding process to address our national transportation needs. It has been 22 months since TEA-21 expired on September 30, 2003. The Federal-aid program has since been operating under a number of short-term extensions--a total of 11 to date. I urge the Senate to approve the conference report before us so that our States can start working on addressing their transportation needs.

Both sides of the aisle in the Senate and House embraced a spirit of bipartisanship and collaboration that has delivered a quality piece of legislation. As in all legislative endeavors there has been much give and take. There are provisions in this bill for which I would have preferred another outcome, but on the whole, I believe we have produced a product that will continue the good work started in ISTEA and improved upon in TEA-21.

The conference report provides $244 billion in guaranteed spending over the 2005-2009 period for our Nation's highways and mass transit systems. If you include 2004, the bill provides $286.5 billion in guaranteed spending--an almost $90 billion increase over TEA-21. Finally, the highway program is guaranteed $193 billion over the 2005- 2009 period.

We worked very hard with our House colleagues to balance the needs of donor and donee States. I will be the first to acknowledge that this balance--as with any compromise--is not perfect. My colleagues representing donee and donor States that receive lower rates of return or growth rates than they feel fair have made this fact very clear to me.

I am very sympathetic to the concerns of both donors and donees in this situation. Both have significant transportation needs that cannot be ignored. Addressing their concerns was even more difficult because we had very limited dollars to solve either group's issues.

SAFETEA-LU tries to split the difference. Donee States have an average rate of growth of 19 percent above their TEA-21 levels, and donor States will reach a 92 percent rate of return by 2008. Also, if there is a positive revenue aligned budget authority in 2007, it will be directed to improve donor States rate of return.

One concern of my donor State colleagues when we were on the floor was that not all donor States were treated equally--that concern has been addressed.

Over the 6 years under TEA-21, we made great progress in preserving and improving the overall physical condition and operation of our transportation system; however, more needs to be done. A safe, effective transportation system is the foundation of our economy. We are past due to fulfill an obligation to this country and the American people--the conference report before us does just that.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge all the staff time and effort that has gone into the bill. Specifically, I would like to single out my highway team: again, Ruth Van Mark and James O'Keeffe, Andrew Wheeler, Marty Hall, Nathan Richmond, Greg Murrill, Angie Giancarlo, Alex Herrgott, and Rudy Kapichak.

From Senator Bond's staff: Ellen Stein, Heideh Shahmoradi, John Stoody, and Julie Daman.

From Senator Jefford's staff: JC Sandberg, Malia Somerville, Ken Connolly, Cara Cookson, Chris Miller, and Jo-Ellen Darcy.

From Senator Baucus's staff: Kathy Ruffalo.

From Senator Frist's staff: Libby Jarvis, Sharon Soderstrom, and Erik Ueland.

From the Federal Highway Administration: Today is Administrator Mary Peters last day before she heads back to Arizona. It is very appropriate that we finish the bill on her last day, because without the hard work of Mary and her staff at FHWA, we would not be here today.

On Mary's staff I want to especially thank Susan Binder, Carolyn Edwards and Ross Crichton, who over the last 3 years have done more than 1600 formula runs. We really appreciate all of your hard work.

Also, I want to personally thank the hard working attorneys in the Senate Legislative Counsel office. In particular, Darci Chan, Heather Arpin and Gary Endicott.

Finally, Rachel Milberg with CBO has done great work in assisting staff work through the complicated scoring process.

I am certain my colleagues share my strong desire to get a transportation reauthorization bill passed and urge them to support the bill before the Senate today.

Let me say I do have a great deal of respect for both of my colleagues from Arizona. However, I will put them on my doubtful list. But I would say this and I will be very brief. We only have 7\1/2\ minutes on each side. I want to make sure that Senator Bond, with whom I have worked as chairman of the Subcommittee of Transportation, and a few others get their time.

Working with Senator Jeffords and Senator Baucus and Senator Bond has been a great experience. We have worked very well together. This has been difficult. We have worked for 2 years on this bill. It is not easy. I would only say this: It is paid for. It didn't increase taxes. It is within the President's parameters.

I thank Senator Jeffords for the great working relationship.

Madam President, it is my understanding we have 6 minutes. I would like to yield 2 minutes each to three Senators, three of the hard workers on this bill. I did forget to mention Senator Grassley, who was so helpful. I would like to recognize Senators Bond, Lott, and Shelby for 2 minutes each.

I yield back the remainder of my time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer of the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel John D. Wason, upon his retirement after more than 20 years of distinguished service.

Throughout his career, Lieutenant Colonel Wason has personified the Army values of duty, integrity, and selfless service across the many missions the Army provides in defense of our Nation. During his time as--a Congressional Legislative Liaison Officer in the office of the Secretary of the Army, many of us on Capitol Hill have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Lieutenant Colonel Wason on a wide variety of Army issues and programs, and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments. I commend his superb service to the U.S. Army and this great Nation.

Lieutenant Colonel John D. Wason was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant, Field Artillery, after graduating from California State University-Sacramento in 1985. His first assignment was as a Company Fire Support Officer, Battery Fire Direction Officer, and Battery Executive Officer for the 3rd Battalion, 19th Field Artillery, 5th Infantry Division at Ft. Polk, LA from 1985 to 1989. He commanded B Battery, 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery in the Federal Republic of Germany from 1990 to 1992. Following his assignment in Germany, LTC Wason spent 28 months as a Recruiting Company Commander in Northern California from 1992 to 1994. In 1994, LTC Wason was selected as a member of the Army Acquisition workforce. From 1994 to 2001 LTC Wason served in a variety of Army Acquisition positions at White Sands Missile Range, NM and Picatinny Arsenal, NJ working on major Army weapons programs such as the Army Tactical Missiles System, Crusader, and the LW 155 Artillery system.

In 2001, LTC Wason was selected as a Department of Defense Congressional Fellow. His selection was followed by a 1 year assignment working on my personal staff. Following his Fellowship, LTC Wason served in Programs Division, Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison. Lieutenant Colonel Wason maintained a constant liaison with Professional Staff Members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on issues relating to Army Procurement programs focusing on Army Aviation, Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles.

Throughout these varied and demanding assignments, Lieutenant Colonel Wason provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to both the Army and Congress. John's counsel and support were invaluable to Army leaders and Members of Congress as they considered the impact of their decisions on these important issues.

On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank Colonel Wason, his wife Betsy, and his entire family for the commitment, sacrifices, and contribution that they have made throughout his honorable military service. I congratulate Lieutenant Colonel John Wason on completing an exceptional and extremely successful career, and wish him blessings and success in all his future endeavors.

I ask unanimous consent that Heideh Shahmoradi, Greg Murrill, and John Stoody be granted the privilege of the floor for the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 3.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank Chairman Grassley for the fine work he has done on a very difficult issue. I will start from a different perspective than others might have concerning this agreement.

First of all, I have been leading the opposition to almost every multinational agreement that has come along. I have stood on the floor of the Senate for probably, collectively, 6 or 8 hours talking about how destructive the Kyoto agreement would be should we be a party to it. I have talked about the Law of the Sea Treaty. It was passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously and was ready for action when we found out what it was. I led the opposition, and we have not passed it yet. We would be losing our sovereignty to the U.N. on a lot of the areas of the sea and the air above it. This is something I have been active in for a long time.

In 1994, I had a very interesting experience. I was in the House of Representatives. I led the opposition to NAFTA at that time. Then I was elected to the Senate in a special election, and it came up in the Senate, and I led the opposition to NAFTA at that time. In Oklahoma, my State, I was the only Member of the House or Senate who opposed NAFTA.

I am here to say that this is not NAFTA. For those who use the argument that NAFTA was wrong and NAFTA should not have worked and, therefore, CAFTA is no good, they just don't know what they are talking about. CAFTA is totally different. I can recall standing on the Senate floor from this very desk saying if we support NAFTA and adopt it, we would have problems--transportation problems--where we would be allowing Mexican truckers to pick up a load in Brownsville, TX, and take it to Oklahoma City and not comply with our wage-an-hour requirements and environmental requirements, and all these things happened; they came true.

That is not what CAFTA is. We have two reasons we need to support CAFTA. One is what the Senator from Iowa talked about--the tariffs. I talked to my farmers, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, and the Farmers Union, and showed them the tariffs they are paying right now, and what the other side is paying, and this is a win-win situation for our farmers. For example, for grains, we pay 10.6 percent; they pay nothing today; for vegetables, we pay 16.7 percent, they pay nothing; for wood products, we pay 10 percent, they

pay nothing. There is a long list--I can go on and on--of commodities and products where we are penalized and they are not.

Under this bill, we will level that playing field and allow farmers in Oklahoma to be on the same level as those other countries. The other reason--and I think this is very important--is the national security reason. I am ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. I can remember the days in Central America when President Reagan was our President, and then the first President Bush, when we gave freedoms and democracies to all those countries down in Central America.

We remember Daniel Ortega and the activities of the Sandinistas. Right now, we are in a position where we can either punish or reward our friends. These countries with whom we will be in an alliance are our friends. They are supporting us in Iraq and supporting us in everything we do. Those other countries are not supporting us. The Chavezes, the Ortegas, and the Castros are the ones starting to emerge again. Can you imagine, after what we went through with the Sandinistas in the 1980s, and we have Ortega running for President again? I am not about to reward him and give him what he wants, keeping us from having that trade.

If you want to know the kinds of people who are opposing CAFTA, I will read you a few: Earth Justice, Friends of the Earth, EnviroCitizen, Freedom Socialist Party, and the Social Welfare Action Alliance, and others like that.

The conservative groups supporting CAFTA are the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the Heritage Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Club for Growth, and it goes on and on.

This is an issue where we are on the right side not just for our farmers and for national security and our friends in Central America and South America, but also it is right for America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will first make a comment or two.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few minutes to respond to some of the substance of the two subjects discussed by the Senator from Utah. Then I would like to describe the amendments I have offered. It will probably take me 20 minutes.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say I was listening intently while the senior Senator from Utah talked about the F/A-22. I would like to add one thing that perhaps he assumes everyone is aware of, but I keep finding people are not aware of it, and that is the Chief of the Air Force now, General Jumper, not too long ago, I think 1997, made a very courageous observation. He called to the attention of the American people that the Russians were making--at that time he was referring to the Su-30, a strike vehicle, that it was actually better than anything we had in our inventory, our F-15 or F-16.

I think a lot of people assumed automatically that when we go onto the battlefield America has the very best of equipment. That is not true. It is kind of scary when you think about a strike vehicle that is out there that has greater capability than our very best and the fact that the American people expect the United States to have the best of everything.

I have talked on this floor many times about the fact that our artillery piece is not as good as one that is made in five different countries. The old Paladin technology is World War II technology. That is something we are going to correct with our future combat system.

But I commend the Senator from Utah for his comments about the F/A- 22. When we get the joint strike fighter and the F/A-22, we will be back in a position where we will be sending our young people out there with the best of equipment. We need to get there as rapidly as possible.

I also want to make a comment about the depot funding plan amendment that is offered by Senator Hatch. It supports the important and vital work being performed by our aircraft depot facilities.

Since the Bush administration came into office, we have seen a renewed interest in the Air Force's depots. To kind of fill us in where we are right now with that, I can remember when the last Secretary of the Air Force came in, his first trip was to Tinker Air Force Base to see how creative they were, to kind of personally examine the kind of work they were doing. He recognized we have to handle the problem that has been there for many, many years; that is, we need to have an in- house capability for depot maintenance on core issues.

The problem has always been: How do you define the core issue? The core issue is not an easy thing to describe and define. But until it is properly defined, we have been using the ratio of 50-50; in other words, to have the in-house capability to handle 50 percent of the functions in the case of a war so we would not be held hostage to a single source contractor.

The key to this overall reinvigoration has been the Air Force's Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan that will ensure America's air and space assets are ready to rapidly respond to any national security threat. Because of this plan we have begun a restoration and modernization of our Air Force's three depot facilities located in Oklahoma, Utah, and Georgia, which will ensure the United States is able to maintain world-class aircraft repair and overall facilities.

If we are to realize the end result of this Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan, it is incumbent upon Congress to fulfill the Air Force's commitment for allocating $150 million a year, over a 6-year period, for recapitalizing, investing, and procuring advanced facilities, equipment, and operation. This funding began in fiscal year 2004, and significant in-roads have already been made.

In one year alone, with this funding support, the Air Mobility Command reported that the rate of aircraft grounded due to parts issues decreased by 37.6 percent. It bettered its flying hour goal by 922,000 hours. The rate of aircraft incidents due to parts issues decreased by 23.4 percent. Logistics response time increased by 20.4 percent. And the level of spare parts in stock improved by 5.5 percent. Such improvements are an indication of the impact of this funding, and this was only a single 1-year period.

We have spoken frequently in this body about the advanced age and challenges of some of our most critical low-density, high-demand aircraft, such as the C-130 tactical airlifter, and the KC-135 refueling tanker. The average age of the C-130 E and H models flying today is 40 years. The average age of the KC-135 E and R models flying today is 44 years. We went through some arduous times, several years ago--about 15 years ago--getting the C-17 on line. It was a recognition that we have to modernize this fleet. I am very thankful we have increased the numbers as the years have gone by. No one would have ever believed, prior to Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the need we would have on these heavy-lift vehicles.

We could go on and on, but the point we want to make is, if we are going to keep our aging fleet of aircraft flying, we must not only maintain them but we must also modify them and give them the latest technology, avionics and things, so we will provide our young people with the same advantage that some of our prospective opponents would have.

At our Air Force depots today, we require engineers and fabrication technicians to solve ever-challenging design and structural problems due to aircraft stress and fatigue that were never anticipated when the aircraft were manufactured. But because of age, we are seeing such flaws. The civilian aviation industry recapitalizes, buying new aircraft when their planes are no longer feasible to fly. Unfortunately, our Air Force does not have such a luxury. The effort the Air Force has started with the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan must be sustained, and Congress must provide the necessary resources.

In light of this, I applaud the sense of the Senate being offered by Senator Hatch. This has been a problem we have seen coming. We know it is there. We have been able to now give our depots some of the same resources, some of the same modernization. They have, on a competitive basis, proven they can do a very good job.

Amendment No. 1313

Mr. President, I have two amendments I have already filed. The second amendment is going to require a new number. The two I am going to be discussing are the ICRC amendment. I have several cosponsors of the amendment, including Senator Kyl. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1313.

The other amendment has a new number. We have talked about it before. It is the U.S.-China

Commission amendment. It is now No. 1476. It is my intention to make a few comments about these two and then to ask for the yeas and nays. We would like to get to a vote on these amendments by tonight.

First, the amendment concerning the ICRC. I simply want to clarify some people's thinking that the ICRC is not the American Red Cross. This is the International Committee on the Red Cross. It has no relationship to the American Red Cross.

My first concern is for American troops. The ICRC has been around since 1863 and has been there for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines throughout two world wars. I thank them for that work. Likewise and moreover, I thank all Americans for military service to America. I did have occasion to be in the U.S. Army. It was the best thing that ever happened in my life. In my continuing preeminent concern for American troops, however, I am compelled to note some concerns and pose some questions about a drift in focus of the ICRC away from its core principles in its mission statement. Indeed, I fear the ICRC may be harming the morale of our American troops by unjustified allegations that detainees and prisoners are not being properly treated.

For example, an ICRC official visited Camp Bucca, a theater internment facility for enemy prisoners that is, as of January 2005, being operated by the 18th Military Police Brigade and Task Force 134, near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. As of late January 2005, the facility had a holding capacity of 6,000 prisoners but only held 5,000. These prisoners were being supervised by 1,200 Army MPs and Air Force airmen. According to the Wall Street Journal, citing a Defense Department source, the ICRC official told U.S. authorities:

You people are no better than and no different than the

Nazi concentration camp guards.

I ask unanimous consent that this entire article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks about the ICRC.

Mr. President, I have been informed I will be asking for the yeas and nays for two different amendments. I will do that after explaining the second amendment.

I know the Senator from Florida, under UC, now has 15 minutes. My time is about to expire. I would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Florida, I be recognized to present what was amendment 1312 and now is No. 1476. And at the conclusion, I will be asking for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes, followed by the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, so we can get procedurally back where we should be, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside for the consideration of amendment No. 1313.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1313.

Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1313 be set aside for the consideration of amendment No. 1476, which I send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is similar to one that I am not going to offer that was previously going to be offered, No. 1312. There have been several changes made, so a new number is assigned to it.

Mr. President, in October 2000, Congress established the United States-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as a bipartisan authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy, China's military and weapons proliferation, and our influence in Asia.

For the past 5 years, the Commission has been holding hearings and issuing annual reports to evaluate ``the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship with the United States and the People's Republic of China.'' Their job is to provide us in Congress with the necessary information to make decisions about the complex situation. However, I fear their reports have gone largely unnoticed.

This has been very disturbing. I have had occasion to give four rather lengthy speeches concerning the recommendations. I will not be redundant, and I certainly will not take the time I took previously, but it is something that is very significant. This was a bipartisan commission, made up of Democrats and Republicans, some Members of Congress, and some former Members of Congress. They came out with recommendations over a period of years.

I found the recommendations of the Commission's 2004 report--this is the most recent approach--objective, necessary, and urgent, and I am offering an amendment to express our support for these viable steps.

This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that China should, first, reevaluate its manipulated currency level and allow it to float against other currencies. In the Treasury Department's recent report to Congress, China's monetary policies are described as ``highly distortionary and pose a risk to China's economy, its trading partners, and global economic growth.''

Second, the appropriate steps ought to be taken through the World Trade Organization to hold China accountable for its dubious trade practices. Major problem issues, such as intellectual property rights, have yet to be addressed.

Third, the United States should revitalize engagement in the Asian region, broaden our interaction with organizations such as ASEAN, which is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Our lack of influence has been demonstrated by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization recently demanding that we set a troop pullout deadline in Afghanistan. This clearly shows we do not have much influence there.

Fourth, the administration ought to hold China accountable for proliferating prohibited technologies. Chinese companies, such as NORINCO, have been sanctioned frequently and yet the Chinese Government refuses to enforce their own nonproliferation agreements.

Fifth, the U.N. should monitor nuclear, biological, and chemical treaties and either enforce these agreements or report them to the Security Council. The United States-China Commission has found that China has undercut the U.N. in many areas, undermining what pressures we have tried to apply on problematic states, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Sixth, the administration ought to review the effectiveness of the one-China policy in relation to Taiwan to reflect the dynamic nature of the situation. The Defense Department's annual report to Congress, released 2 days ago, states that China's military ``sustained buildup affects the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.'' We have been watching this for a number of years. We have also been watching the growth and enhancement of China's conventional military capability. We have known about their nuclear capability for some time. Now we see, as the Senator from Utah was mentioning a few minutes ago, that countries are buying these superior strike vehicles from Russia, such as the SU-30s. China, in one purchase, I understand, bought some 240. One has to stop and think about this. It puts them in the position to have better strike vehicles than we do. Of course, we have seen the buildup, the effect on their relationship in the Taiwan Strait.

Seventh, various energy agencies should encourage China to develop its strategic oil reserve in order to avoid a disastrous economic crisis if oil availability becomes unstable. We have to understand that we have a serious problem in this country with the fact that we are relying upon foreign countries for some 65 percent of the oil we import. We are now starting to compete with China which has that great problem, too.

As one travels around and looks at countries such as Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, and other countries where they are establishing relationships--we have seen what they are doing in Venezuela right now--we have to recognize they are going to be our chief competition in becoming self-sufficient in our ability to fight a war without dependency upon foreign countries.

Eighth, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, called CFIUS, should include national economic security as a criterion for evaluation and the chairmanship to be transferred to a more appropriate chair allowing for increased security precautions.

Right now CFIUS has actually reviewed some 1,500 cases of purchases by foreign countries, and they have only questioned 24. They relented on those and only stopped one. That is 1 out of 1,500. There is something wrong. We see some things that are going on right now, such as Unocal, that have received a lot of publicity. This is a very strong recommendation. In fact, I have a separate resolution that covers just this issue and this alone. It will recommend that the chairmanship be changed from the Secretary of Treasury to the Secretary of Defense.

Ninth, the administration should continue its pressure on the EU to maintain its arms embargo on China. The recent Defense Department report states the EU would not have the capability to monitor and enforce any limits if the arms embargo is lifted.

Tenth, penalties should be placed on foreign contractors who sell sensitive military use technology or weapons system to China from benefiting from U.S. defense-related research development in production programs. What is going on is sales are taking place to China on technology that has been subsidized by the United States. In other words, we are putting ourselves in a situation where our national security would be impaired by our own research for which we have paid.

Eleventh, the administration should also provide a report to Congress on the scope of foreign military sales to China.

Finally, Congress should support the recommendations of the Commission's 2004 report to Congress. Unless our relationship with China is backed up with strong action, they will never take us seriously. We will certainly see more violations of proliferation treaties. It is happening over and over. We are looking at it right now. They continue to manipulate regional global trade through currency undervaluation and other unhealthy practices. They will develop unreliable oil sources and energy alliances with countries that threaten international stability. They will continue to escalate the situation over Taiwan, raising the stakes in a game neither country can win.

In today's world, we see how the unpaid bills of the past come back to haunt us in full. Ignoring these problems is unacceptable.

The United States-China Commission was created to give us in Congress a clear picture about what is going on. They have done their job. It is time for us to do our job.

I repeat, this is a commission that has been working now for 4 years. It is a bipartisan commission. These are specific recommendations. This amendment is a sense of the Senate to follow these recommendations.

This is amendment No. 1476.

Amendment No. 1312 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 1312.

We are considering amendment No. 1476. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1476.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to support the nomination of Tom Dorr for Under Secretary for Rural Development in the Department of Agriculture.

Thomas Dorr, with his powerful vision for rural America, with his proven leadership as Under Secretary, and with the trust that so many have placed on him, is more than qualified to be confirmed by the Senate.

Let me provide a little background information on this nomination process since President Bush took office in 2001. On March 22, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Tom Dorr to serve as the Under Secretary of Rural Development. During that year, three nomination hearings were scheduled and then canceled; finally, during the August 2002 recess, the President appointed Mr. Dorr as Undersecretary.

During Mr. Dorr's tenure as Under Secretary, it has been his leadership and dedication that led to the long list of improvements that increased economic opportunity and improved the quality of life in rural America.

He tackled the very complicated and difficult problems involved in the Multi-Family Housing Program that, according to the one congressional staff member, ``were ignored by all previous Under Secretaries''--he believes all rural citizens deserve safe and secure housing.

Dorr initiated an aggressive marketing program to extend the outreach of USDA Rural Development programs to more deserving rural Americans and qualified organizations, especially minorities.

Also while he served as Under Secretary, Mr. Dorr supported the use of

renewable energy, which led to millions of dollars in grants to develop renewable energy sources; Mr. Dorr boosted the morale of USDA Rural Development employees; Mr. Dorr aided in the development of community water/wastewater infrastructure--and the list goes on.

After his temporary position as Under Secretary, Tom Dorr has completely resurfaced USDA Rural Development. This is a result of his vision for USDA Rural Development. During his term, Mr. Dorr changed USDA Rural Development from being the lender of last resort to one where employees aggressively seek out investments to make in people and organizations that will fulfill its mission.

On June 18, 2003, the Agriculture Committee recommended Mr. Dorr to the Senate on a bi-partisan vote of 14-7. On December 19, 2003 the full Senate failed to break Senator Harkin's hold on the nomination by a vote of 57-39, six Democrats and fifty-one Republicans. Since the attempted cloture, President Bush again nominated Tom Dorr in January of this year, only for Mr. Dorr to meet more of the same from the Senate.

One Senator has held up the confirmation since April 30, 2001, and after President Bush has nominated a qualified candidate for this position three times, we still have yet to see an up or down vote. Despite the fact that Tom Dorr has proven his leadership as Under Secretary, some have still insisted on using the politics of obstruction and partisanship to keep Mr. Dorr from receiving confirmation in this Senate.

For my State of Oklahoma, the strong leadership of Thomas Dorr resulted in an increase of millions of dollars in rural development.

Mr. Dorr's leadership for Rural Development included an aggressive outreach program to rural residents in need of assistance and an innovative effort to leverage more appropriated dollars into program dollars. In fact, Rural Development receives from Congress annual budget authority of about $1.9 billion, and they turn it into $15 billion in program dollars. This includes the administrative money for the agency. In other words, Rural Development takes 12 cents and turns it into a dollar of assistance for rural economic development efforts, which is a level of efficiency difficult to find in most Federal agencies. During his term, Mr. Dorr encouraged the increased use of guaranteed loan programs versus grants to achieve this efficiency as well as very strict tracking of loan servicing.

In other words, Rural Development ``invests'' its dollars expecting a return on investment, rather than just throwing money at communities and hope they fix themselves.

I have seen many of these projects first hand in Oklahoma, from revolving loan funds to business incubators to new water systems. Loans matched with grants with realistic expectations from Rural Development partners is what I see as I tour rural Oklahoma. It takes visionary leadership to achieve this, and for a short time in 2002 and 2003, Mr. Dorr provided this leadership. It is still needed in this important agency.

What Mr. Dorr's vision has meant for Oklahoma is an increase in funding assistance. Oklahoma's Program Level in the past 4 years has gone from $193 million to $322 million. Business Programs have increased 500 percent, Housing Programs have doubled, and all of this is attributable to the outreach efforts encouraged by Mr. Dorr as well as the leveraging efforts he has put in place to allow each Federal dollar to go further.

Mr. Dorr has also made several visits to Oklahoma providing technical assistance on ethanol production, which may lead to the development of our first ethanol plant in our State. He has also met with our Rural Health Care Providers in Oklahoma to help bridge the gap between rural health needs and resources available from Rural Development.

Mr. Dorr is supported by many of our rural advocacy groups in Oklahoma as exemplified by the following quotes:

Ernest Holloway, President of Langston University Oklahoma's 1890 College:

Langston University has a direct stake in improving

economic opportunities in rural Oklahoma . . . It is critical

that we have strong and creative leadership at the Department

of Agriculture in the Rural Development Mission Area. We

strongly support Thomas C. Dorr for the position of Under

Secretary for Rural Development.

Ray Wulf, President of Oklahoma Farmers Union, that includes 48 percent of the membership of the National Farmers Union:

. . . (Mr. Dorr) visited our state office here in Oklahoma

City. During that meeting we had a very fruitful discussion

relative to rural development and the creation of ethanol and

oilseed opportunities within the state. He shared several

rural development experiences within his own home state and

demonstrated his expertise relative to those projects . . .

we can see the value in having Mr. Dorr's expertise and

experiences put to work on behalf of rural America. We trust

that you will equally find such favor with Tom Dorr when he

is considered for confirmation by the United States Senate.

Jeramy Rich, Director of Public Policy for the Oklahoma Farm Bureau:

Mr. Dorr has proven that he has the passion, skill and

experience to lead the USDA's Rural Development efforts. Mr.

Dorr has been a leading advocate for the value-added and

sustainable agriculture that has benefited small family

farmers and offered them an opportunity to remain

competitive. In addition, he has pushed the Department to

provide more creative outreach to minorities in order to

ensure their full participation in USDA Rural Development

program . . . Our members need Tom Dorr's leadership at USDA

Rural Development.

Mr. Dorr also has the strong support of Oklahoma's Rural Development State Director, Brent Kisling:

The fact that the President continues to stand by Mr. Dorr

since 2001 is a true testimony to the confidence he has in

the abilities of Thomas C. Dorr.

With all of the confidence that has been placed on Tom Dorr and with the incredible results that Mr. Dorr has delivered, I believe that he is capable of doing the job that rural America deserves.

The nomination process is supposed to be one of bipartisanship, where the Senate is given the opportunity to evaluate the credentials and to assess the competence of the nominee. Instead, this process has been skewed and perverted by Senator Harkin and others that stand only for obstruction.

To some, it seems that the confirmation of Thomas Dorr has been a small, unimportant matter. To the agriculture industry, to the people of my State of Oklahoma, and to the people of rural America, this confirmation is not a small matter.

I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be inserted into the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, let me also join Senator Frist in this legislation. I believe it is very significant. I spoke last April on the Senate floor on behalf of this issue, and I am proud to do so again with this amendment.

Sadly, since my previous speech, there has been a recent Federal court ruling against the Pentagon's support for the National Boy Scout Jamboree, which occurs every 4 years and attracts about 40,000 people. It will be taking place on July 25.

In her decision, a Federal judge in Chicago ruled that a statute permitting the military to lend support for the National Scout Jamboree violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.

In short, the judge ruled that Pentagon funding is unconstitutional because the Boy Scouts are a religious organization as it requires Scouts to affirm a belief in God. I will speak more on this later.

However, it is clear to me that for more than 90 years, the Boy Scouts have benefited our youth and helped produce some of the best and brightest leaders in our country. I believe we must reaffirm our support for the vital work they have done and continue to do. Like many of my friends here, I was a Boy Scout many years ago.

As a result of the great work they do, I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 642, the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005, as well as this amendment.

I had at one time considered introducing my own bill on this very important matter. However, I was so pleased with the substance of this bill that I was proud to add my name as a cosponsor, and I again thank Senator Frist for his efforts on this issue.

As you may know, this bill, and now this amendment, address efforts by some groups to prevent Federal agencies from supporting our Scouts. This bill would remove any doubts that Federal agencies can welcome Scouts and the great work they do.

Sadly, as the following excerpt from a July 20, 2005, Wall Street Journal editorial demonstrates, these great organizations have come under attack. The column from this respected publication explains that:

Because the Scouts require members to ``privately exercise

their religious faith as directed by their families and

religious advisors,'' the ACLU petitioned the court to

declare the organization ``theistic'' and ``pervasively

sectarian.'' Judge Blanche Manning didn't go quite that far

last month, but she did rule it an overtly religious

association because it ``excludes atheists and agnostics from

membership.'' She ordered the Army to expel the next Jamboree

from Fort A.P. Hill in 2010, by which time we trust the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will have overturned her

decision.

I hope this unfortunate decision is overturned as well.

As Senator Frist has said, this legislation will specifically ensure that the Department of Defense can and will continue to provide the Scouts the type of support it has provided in the past. Moreover, the Scouts would be permitted equal access to public facilities, forums, and programs that are open to a variety of other youth or community organizations.

It is enormously regrettable to me that the Scouts have come under attack from aggressive liberal groups blatantly pushing their own social agendas and become the target of lawsuits by organizations that are more concerned with pushing these liberal agendas than sincerely helping our youth.

Rather than protecting our religious freedoms, these groups are clearly bent on discriminating against any organization that has faith as one of its tenets.

Thus, today, the Federal Government continues to defend the lawsuit aimed at severing traditional ties between the Boy Scouts and the Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development.

What is more, Scouts have been excluded by certain State and local governments from utilizing public facilities, forums and programs, which are open to other groups.

It is certainly disappointing and, frankly frustrating that we have reached a point where groups such as the ACLU are far more interested in tearing down great institutions like the Boy Scouts than helping foster character and values in our young men. I am tired of these tactics. It is very disturbing to me that these groups unabashedly attack organizations, regardless of the good they do or the support they have from the vast majority of Americans, simply to further their own subjective social agendas.

I, for one, am saddened that the Boy Scouts of America has been the most recent target of these frivolous lawsuits. I reject any arguments that the Boy Scouts is anything but one of the greatest programs for character development and values-based leadership training in America today.

We should seek to aid, not impede, groups that promote values such as duty to God and country, faith and family, and public service and sacrifice, which are deeply ingrained in the oath of every Scout. To fail to support such values would allow the very fabric of America, which has brought us to this great place in history, to be destroyed.

Today, with more than 3.2 million youth members, and more than 1.2 million adult volunteers, we can certainly say that the Boy Scouts of America has positively impacted the lives of generations of boys, preparing them to be men of great character and values. Remarkably, Boy Scout membership since 1910 totals more than 110 million.

I am proud to report that in Oklahoma we have a total youth participation of nearly 75,000 boys; and in Oklahoma City alone, we have about 7,000 adult volunteers.

These young men have helped serve communities all over our State with programs such as Helping Hands for Heroes, a program where Scouts help military families whose loved ones are serving overseas. These young men have cut grass, cleaned homes, taken out the garbage, and walked dogs. What a great service for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their families. Our Boy Scouts have also served as ushers and first-aid responders at the University of Oklahoma football games for more than 50 years.

Notably, Scouts in my State have also shared a long and proud history of cooperation and partnership with military installations in Oklahoma. Furthermore, events, such as the National Jamboree, allow an opportunity to expose large numbers of young Americans to our great military in a time when fewer and fewer receive such exposure. I believe this is a very good thing, and I will fight to see that it continues.

Given all this, I hope my colleagues will join me in defending this organization and others like it. We must not be afraid to support our youth and organizations like the Boy Scouts that support them.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial that I mentioned previously argued:

The values the Scouts embody are vital to the national good

and in need today, more than ever.

I agree and am proud to rise in support today and always for this great cause.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I respond to the distinguished chairman that I do have three amendments that are prepared and I am ready to bring them up and get them into the system. I also have two UC requests. If I could be recognized for that purpose, I would appreciate that.

Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for allowing me to offer these amendments. I will stay within a timeframe that will allow other speakers under the UC to be heard. I have three amendments I will be bringing up.

I first ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1312 and that Senator Kyl be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1313.

Mr. President, is it necessary to set aside the pending amendment for me to offer my amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk, No. 1311, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, as a practical and timely step toward addressing problems with China, I am introducing amendment No. 1311. This amendment addresses the review process of foreign acquisitions in the U.S. The review of controversial buys, such as the CNOOC, currently falls to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. I will state this simply: CFIUS has not demonstrated an appropriate conception of U.S. national security. I understand that Representatives Hyde, Hunter and Manzullo expressed similar views in a January letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, the chairman of CFIUS. Of more than 1,500 cases of foreign investments or acquisitions in the U.S., CFIUS has investigated only 24. And only one resulted in actually stopping the transaction. This lone disapproval, in February 1990, occurred with respect to a transaction that had already taken place--it took President George H.W. Bush to stop the transaction and safeguard our national security.

Another example of CFIUS falling short is with Magnequench International Incorporated. In 1995 Chinese corporations bought GM's Magnequench, a supplier of rare earth metals used in the guidance systems of smart bombs. Over 12 years, the company has been moved piecemeal to mainland China, leaving the U.S. with no domestic supplier of neodymium, a critical component of rare-earth magnets. CFIUS approved this transfer. The United States now buys rare earth metals, which are essential for precision-guided munitions, from one single country--China.

Some experts believe that China's economic policy is a purposeful attempt to undermine the U.S. industrial base and likewise, the defense industrial base. Perhaps it is hard to believe that China's economic manipulation is such a threat to our Nation. In response, I would like to read from the book ``Unrestricted Warfare'', written by two PLA, People's Liberation Army, senior Colonels:

Military threats are already no longer the major factors

affecting national security . . . traditional factors are

increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing

resources contending for markets, controlling capital, trade

sanctions and other economic factors.

I have outlined in my earlier speeches how China is a clear threat. I believe it is. But I also believe that this threat can be addressed and allow a healthy, mutual growth for both our countries. The CFIUS process is at the heart of this issue. Chairman of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Dick D'Amato, stated this morning that the CFIUS process is ``broken.'' This amendment is a step toward fixing the problems, enabling the foreign review to carry out its function and truly protect our national security.

First, it clearly charges the commission with measuring energy and economic security as fundamental aspects of national security.

Second, it brings congressional oversight into the foreign investment review process. After a 10-day review period, an oversight committee chairman can extend the review period to 30 days. Congress then has the option to pass a resolution of disapproval and thus stop an acquisition harmful to our country.

Third, the amendment calls for a report on the security implications of transactions on a monthly basis. There will also be a yearly report to the proper congressional committees that will review the cumulative effect of our sales with China.

The amendment also changes the name of the review mechanism to reflect the national security focus that it should be emphasizing. The new name would be Committee on Foreign Acquisitions Affecting National Security, or CFAANS. Further, the designated chairman of the process would become the Secretary of Defense, also reflecting the security focus that the process should be based on.

The foreign investment review process is vital to providing for U.S. security, particularly in relation to countries such as China. However, it is in need of attention and changes no less drastic than I have suggested here.

We are going to have to do something about the performance of this organization. To do it, we will have to change the structure. I am going to be recommending that the chairman of CFIUS no longer be the Secretary of the Treasury but be the Secretary of Defense, since they deal with very critical national security issues.

Amendment No. 1312

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send amendment No. 1312 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

In October of 2000, Congress established the United States-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as a bipartisan authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy and industrial base and China's military and weapons proliferation. I have read these recommendations. I have given four 1-hour speeches on the floor of the Senate concerning the recommendations. I think it is appropriate that we have those recommendations incorporated into the Defense authorization bill under consideration at this time. My amendment 1312 puts these recommendations into place that I have spoken on before in the Senate Chamber.

As I said, in October of 2000 Congress established the U.S.-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as the bipartisan authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy, industrial base, China's military and weapons proliferation, and our influence in Asia. For the past 5 years the commission has been holding hearings and issuing annual reports to evaluate ``the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.'' Their job is to provide us in Congress with the necessary information to make decisions about this complex situation. However, I fear their reports have gone largely unnoticed.

In the most recent report, dated June 2004, the commission makes this alarming opening statement:

Based on our analysis to date, as documented in detail in

our Report, the Commission believes that a number of the

current trends in U.S.-China relations have negative

implications for our long-term economic and national security

interests, and therefore that U.S. policies in these areas

are in need of urgent attention and course corrections.

As their report and recent news headlines show, China has continued on an alarming course of expansion, in some aspects threatening U.S. national security. I have found the recommendations in the commission's 2004 Report objective, necessary, and urgent, and I am introducing an amendment to express our support for these viable steps. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that: China should revaluate its manipulated currency level and allow it to float against other currencies. In the Treasury Department's recent Report to Congress, China's monetary policies are described as ``highly distortionary and pose a risk to China's economy, its trading partners, and global economic growth.''

Appropriate steps ought to be taken through the World Trade Organization

to hold China accountable for its dubious trade practices. Major problem issues such as intellectual property rights have yet to be addressed.

The U.S. should revitalize engagement in the Asian region, broadening our interaction with organizations like ASEAN. Our lack of influence has been demonstrated by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization recently demanding that we set a pullout deadline in Afghanistan.

The administration ought to hold China accountable for proliferating prohibited technologies. Chinese companies such as CPMIEC or NORINCO have been sanctioned frequently and yet the Chinese government refuses to enforce their own nonproliferation agreements.

The U.N. should monitor nuclear/biological/chemical treaties and either enforce these agreements or report them to the Security Council. The U.S.-China Commission has found that China has undercut the U.N. many areas, undermining what pressure we've tried to apply on problematic states such as Sudan or Zimbabwe.

The administration ought to review the effectiveness of the ``One China'' policy in relation to Taiwan to reflect the dynamic nature of the situation.

Various energy agencies should encourage China to develop a strategic oil reserve so as to avoid a disastrous oil crisis if availability should become volatile.

The administration should develop and publish a national strategy to maintain U.S. scientific and technological leadership in regards to China's rapid growth in these fields.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, should include national economic security as a criterion for evaluation and the chairmanship to be transferred to a more appropriate chair, allowing for increased security precautions.

The administration should continue in its pressure on the EU to maintain its arms embargo on China.

Penalties should be placed on foreign contractors who sell sensitive military use technology or weapons systems to China from benefiting from U.S. defense-related research, development and production programs. The administration should also provide a report to Congress on the scope foreign military sales to China.

And finally, we should provide a broad consensus in support of the Commission 2004 Report's recommendations.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission have done an outstanding job providing us with a clear picture of a very complex and serious situation. Unless our relationship with China is backed up with strong action they will never take us seriously. We will certainly see more violations of proliferation treaties. They will continue to manipulate regional and global trade through currency undervaluation and other unhealthy practices. They will develop unreliable oil sources and energy alliances with countries that threaten international stability. They will continue to escalate the situation over Taiwan, raising the stakes in a game neither country can win. In today's world we see how the unpaid bills of the past come back to haunt us in full; ignoring these problems is unacceptable. As the China Commission states,

We need to use our substantial leverage to develop an

architecture that will help avoid conflict, attempt to build

cooperative practices and institutions, and advance both

countries' long-term interests. The United States cannot lose

sight of these important goals, and must configure its

policies toward China to help make them materialize . . . If

we falter in the use of our economic and political influence

now to effect positive change in China, we will have

squandered an historic opportunity.

The U.S.-China Commission was created to give us in Congress a clear picture about what is going on--they have done their job. Now let's do ours.

Amendment No. 1313

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the purposes of consideration of amendment No. 1313 which I send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. We have talked about some of the problems that have existed with the ICRC, the International Committee on the Red Cross. I would like to make sure people understand we are not talking about the American Red Cross. There have been problems that have come up. My first concern is for the American troops. The ICRC has been around since 1863 and has been there for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines through two world wars. I thank them for that good work they did. Likewise, I thank all Americans for their military service to America. I did have occasion to be in the Army. That was one of the best things that happened in my life.

In my continuing preeminent concern for American troops, however, I am compelled to note some concerns and pose some questions about the drift in focus of the ICRC. In spite of some of the things that have been very good that they have done in the past, there have been some very serious problems. I think they need to be called to the attention of the Senate and be made a part of this bill.

Specifically, the ICRC has engaged in efforts to reinterpret and expand international law so as to afford terrorists and insurgents the same rights and privileges as military personnel of

states party to the Geneva Convention. They have advocated, lobbied for arms control, issues that are not within the organization's mandate, and inaccurately and unfairly accused the United States of not adhering to the Geneva Conventions when the ICRC itself has demonstrated reluctance to ensure that the Geneva Convention protections are afforded U.S. prisoners of war.

Neither the American Red Cross nor any other national Red Cross or Red Crescent Society is consulted by the ICRC or is in any way involved in the ICRC's policy decisions and statements. The Government has remained the ICRC's single largest contributor since its founding in 1990. The Government has provided more than $1.5 billion in funding for the ICRC. Congress should request from the administration and the GAO an examination of how the ICRC spends the U.S. taxpayers' dollars to determine whether the entire annual U.S. contribution to the ICRC headquarters--in other words, the ICRC operations--is advancing American interests.

Additionally, Congress should request that the State, Defense, and Justice Departments jointly certify that the ICRC's operations and performance have been in full accord with its Geneva Conventions mandate. The administration strongly advocates for full transparency of all ICRC documents relating to the organization's core and noncore activities and the administration argues for a change in the ICRC statute so as to allow non-Swiss officials to be a part of the organization and directing bodies of the ICRC.

Indeed, I fear that the ICRC may be harming the morale of our American troops by unjustified allegations that detainees and prisoners are not being properly treated.

For example, an ICRC official visited Camp Bucca, a theater internment facility for enemy prisoners of war that is, as of January 2005, being operated by the 18th Military Police Brigade and Task Force 134, near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. As of late January 2005, the facility had a holding capacity of 6,000 prisoners but only held 5,000. These prisoners were being supervised by 1,200 Army MPs and Air Force Airmen.

According to the Wall Street Journal, citing a Defense Department source, the ICRC official told U.S. authorities, ``you people are no better than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards.''

The ICRC and the State Department have confirmed that this ICRC official is now transferred from the Iraq assignment in the wake of her comment. Such a comment is obviously damaging to the morale of our American troops and offended the soldiers and airmen present.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has now held 13 hearings on the topic of prisoner treatment.

Sometimes we get bogged down in all the detail and we forget about the overall picture, the big picture. And I'm shocked when I found, only last Tuesday, from the Pentagon's report, that after 3 years and 24,000 interrogations, there were only three acts of violation of the approved interrogation techniques authorized by Field Manual 3452 and DOD guidelines.

The small infractions found were found by our own government, corrected and now reported. In all the cases no further incidents occurred. We have nothing to be ashamed of. What other country attacked as we were would exercise the same degree of self-criticism and restraint.

Most, if not all, of these incidents are at least a year old. I'm very impressed with the way the military, the FBI, and other agencies have conducted themselves. The report shows me that an incredible amount of restraint and discipline was present at Gitmo.

Having heard a lot about the Field Manual 3452, I asked, ``Are the DOD guidelines, as currently published in that manual, appropriate to allow interrogators to get valuable information, intelligence information, while not crossing the line from interrogation to abuse?'' The answer from Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, Commander of U.S. Southern Command was, ``I think, because that manual was written for enemy prisoners of war, we have a translation problem, in that enemy prisoners are to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions-- that doesn't apply. That's why the recommendation was made and I affirmed it. We need a further look here on this new phenomenon of enemy combatants. It's different, and we're trying to use, I think, a manual that was written for one reason in another environment.''

Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, the senior investigating officer said, ``Sir, I agree. It's critical that we come to grips with not hanging on a Cold War relic of Field Manual 3452, which addressed an entirely different population. If we are, in fact, going to get intelligence to stay ahead of this type of threat, we need to understand what else we can do and still stay in our lane of humane treatment.''

Brig. Gen. John T. Furlow, the investigating officer, stated, ``Sir, in echoing that, F.M. 3452 was originally written in 1987, further updated and refined in 1992, which is dealing with the Geneva question as well as an ordered battle enemy, not the enemy that we're facing currently. I'm aware that Fort Huachuca's currently in a rewrite of the next 3452, and it's in a draft form right now.''

It is clear that our military has humane treatment placed at the forefront of their concerns.

At the same time I want to ask, ``What other country would freely discuss interrogation techniques used against high-value intelligence detainees during a time of war when suicide bombers are killing our fellow citizens?

Why would we freely explain the limitations placed on our interrogators, when we know that our enemy trains his terrorists in methods to defeat our interrogations?

We're handing them new information on how to train future terrorists. What damage are we doing to our war effort by parading these relatively minor infractions before the press and the world again and again and again while our soldiers risk their lives daily and are given no mercy by the enemy?

Our enemies exploit everything we do and everything we say. Al- Zarqawi, the other day, said to his followers, quote, ``The Americans are living their worst days in Iraq now. Even Members of Congress have announced that the u.S. is losing the war in Iraq.''

Let us stop demoralizing our troops. I say let us support our troops in their continuing humane treatment of the detainees at Gitmo.

While we have done more than enough examining of ourselves, I believe it is fair to pose some questions to others as well.

In this amendment, I am requesting, with my cosponsors, simply a report to the Congress about activities of the ICRC.

In the past 15 years the United States has provided more than $1.5 billion dollars in funding to the ICRC. I would like to ask for some accountability for the use of this money and a modicum of oversight. For example, I think it is fair to ask:

``How is our money being spent?''

``What are the activities of the ICRC to determine the status of American POW's/MIA's unaccounted for since World War II?''

``What are the efforts of the ICRC to assist American POW's held in captivity during the Korean War, Vietnam War, and any subsequent conflicts?''

``Has the ICRC exceeded its mandate, violated established practices or principles, or engaged in advocacy work that exceeds the ICRC's mandate as provided for under the Geneva Conventions?''

Please join with me in supporting this simple, fair request for such a report.

I yield the floor.

I am aware that only one affects the Banking Committee. The national security ramifications of the performance and the functions of CFIUS are far greater than any banking function. I would be happy to deal with the chairman of the Banking Committee and talk about the proper jurisdiction.

That is my judgment.

Yes, that is a fair request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my Air Force fellow, LTC Carlos Hill, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, somewhere in the world a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds. The disease debilitates more than 500 million people annually and kills well over 1 million of them. Suffering most acutely from this epidemic is the continent of Africa where 90 percent of the world's malaria deaths occur. In fact, malaria is the No. 1 killer of pregnant women and children under the age of 5 in Africa.

I have personally visited nearly 20 countries in Africa. Everywhere you go there, children have it. These trips have changed statistics into incomprehensible reality for me. Malaria--a debilitating and deadly disease--is a huge problem. I recently heard from a young boy in Ghana named Ibrahim who has accepted the dismal reality of dealing with malaria. ``Malaria is just a part of life,'' Ibrahim told me.

The United States has been concerned about this problem for many years. The United States Agency for International Development, USAID, budget to fight this disease has increased nearly fivefold since 1998 to $90 million in 2005. However, the incidence of malaria continues to increase alarmingly in underdeveloped African countries. Unequivocally, the current strategy is not working. USAID spends 90 percent of its money on advice giving, conferences, and technical assistance, but not on direct interventions that produce significant results.

Insecticides to preempt malaria are cheap. Drugs to cure malaria can be purchased for $2--less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Indoor residual spraying is a technique that has eradicated malaria in many regions. We know how to address malaria and we have the resources to do it.

We have talked enough about the problem. It is time to fix it.

I am pleased that we have addressed this problem with language in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This is an important step toward achieving real results. Instead of doling out money to beltway- based consultants, this language will ensure that tangible aid reaches desperate African women and children. It is vital that we require USAID malaria allocations go toward lifesaving drugs, mosquito nets, and pesticides, which are proven to reduce malaria death and infection rates. In the hands of the affected individuals these commodities can save lives. It does not take a lot of money to make a huge difference.

Additionally, this language requires transparency from USAID. I have often had difficulty determining exactly how USAID malaria money is being spent. In fact, the latest data available to Congress on how USAID spends malaria funding is from fiscal year 2004.

That year only 1 percent of total malaria funding was spent on indoor residual spraying, 1 percent was spent on purchasing antimalarial drugs, and 6 percent was used to purchase insecticide-treated bed nets.

I am also concerned that too much of our foreign aid goes to conferences and research. Not enough resources get directly to the Africans who suffer so acutely. No more studies. It is time to act and to prevent that aid from being diverted to Washington consultants.

To effectively address this epidemic, Congress needs to ensure that the money it appropriates is wisely spent. Within 90 days of enactment, this language requires USAID to submit their malaria expenditure report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to describe how they plan to follow these new priorities. I am confident that this increased accountability will prevent funds from going primarily primarily to beltway-based consultants.

When we know how to eradicate malaria and possess the resources to do that, there is no reason that six children should have died in the time it took me to give this speech. It is a needless tragedy that we have the opportunity to arrest.

Children in Africa have accepted the reality that malaria is inevitable. Today, we have the chance to change that dismal reality into tangible hope.