Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, this summer Russia will assume the rotating leadership position of the Group of Eight nations for the first time. I have expressed my concern repeatedly about the democratic deterioration in Russia and I believe that, unless the Russian leadership makes significant democratic progress, its continued membership in the G-8 should be blocked. Since Senator Lieberman and I first expressed this view in a resolution we submitted in 2003, I have heard similar sentiments from Senate colleagues and individuals outside the Congress. Many observers across the political and ideological spectrum are concerned by Russia's retreat from core democratic principles.

President Vladimir Putin recently delivered an address aimed at reassuring the world that he takes democracy seriously. And while a number of the passages were welcome, others displayed a view of history and of Russia's role in the world that is simply astonishing. I would like to share with my colleagues today's Washington Post editorial that makes this point in detail.

Moscow's commitment to democracy and the rule of law is a vital element of America's relationship with Russia, and with Russia's ties to various multilateral institutions. I hope that the Russian leadership might see that its national interests lie in cooperation, not competition, with democratic countries. I also hope that Russia will change many elements of its policy toward smaller neighbors. Russia has based Russian troops in Georgia and Moldova without the consent of those countries, thereby undermining their sovereignty and violating international law.

If the Kremlin persists in persecuting Mr. Putin's political rivals, cracking down on the free media, and intimidating countries along Russian borders, I believe that Russian chairmanship of the G-8 is entirely inappropriate. Again, I recommend to my colleagues the Washington Post editorial I submit for the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Television Information-Enhancement for the Visually Impaired (TIVI) Act of 2005. This bill would require television broadcasters, during at least 50 hours of their prime time or children's programming every quarter, to insert verbal descriptions of actions or settings not contained in the normal audio track of a program. This can be accomplished through technology commonly referred to as ``video description services,'' which allows television programming to be more accessible and enjoyable for the visually impaired.

This bill is necessary due to a 2002 decision by District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission''), recognizing the need to make television programming accessible to the visually impaired, promulgated rules that mandated television broadcast stations and their affiliates, which met certain market requirements, provide 50 hours of video descriptions during prime time or children's programming every calendar quarter. Television programmers challenged the Commission's authority to promulgate such rules. The Circuit Court held that the Commission did not have authority to issue the regulations.

This bill would provide the Commission the authority to promulgate such regulations and reinstate the FCC's video description rules issued in 2000. Additionally, the bill would require the FCC to consider whether it is economically and technically feasible and consistent with the public interest to include ``accessible information'' in its video description rules, which may include written information displayed on a screen, hazardous warnings and other emergency information, and local and national news bulletins.

Since the spectrum that television broadcasters utilize is a public asset, one would expect that programming over the public airwaves is accessible to all Americans. Unfortunately, that is not the case today and that is why we must pass the TIVI Act. I sincerely hope that television broadcasters will work with us to provide video descriptions for individuals with visual disabilities.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Television Information-Enhancement for the Visually Impaired (TIVI) Act of 2005. This bill would require television broadcasters, during at least 50 hours of their prime time or children's programming every quarter, to insert verbal descriptions of actions or settings not contained in the normal audio track of a program. This can be accomplished through technology commonly referred to as ``video description services,'' which allows television programming to be more accessible and enjoyable for the visually impaired.

This bill is necessary due to a 2002 decision by District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission''), recognizing the need to make television programming accessible to the visually impaired, promulgated rules that mandated television broadcast stations and their affiliates, which met certain market requirements, provide 50 hours of video descriptions during prime time or children's programming every calendar quarter. Television programmers challenged the Commission's authority to promulgate such rules. The Circuit Court held that the Commission did not have authority to issue the regulations.

This bill would provide the Commission the authority to promulgate such regulations and reinstate the FCC's video description rules issued in 2000. Additionally, the bill would require the FCC to consider whether it is economically and technically feasible and consistent with the public interest to include ``accessible information'' in its video description rules, which may include written information displayed on a screen, hazardous warnings and other emergency information, and local and national news bulletins.

Since the spectrum that television broadcasters utilize is a public asset, one would expect that programming over the public airwaves is accessible to all Americans. Unfortunately, that is not the case today and that is why we must pass the TIVI Act. I sincerely hope that television broadcasters will work with us to provide video descriptions for individuals with visual disabilities.

Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the senior Senator from Alaska concerning the qualifications of John Negroponte. Both the Senator from Alaska and I have known him for many years and his service is one of great distinction. I am confident he will receive the endorsement of an overwhelming majority of the Senate.

Nomination of John Bolton

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. We all know, somewhat unexpectedly, Mr. Bolton's nomination has been held pending further discussion and consideration by the Foreign Relations Committee.

I want to say I strongly support Mr. Bolton's nomination. He has been confirmed by the Senate four times in the past. He is a smart, experienced, hardworking, and talented man, and he knows the United Nations. He is not a career diplomat, but neither was Jean Kirkpatrick. He is not a career diplomat, either by profession or temperament, but then the role of ambassador to the U.N. has always required something special. A look back at some of the personalities who have held the job--from Adlai Stevenson to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, from Madeleine Albright, to Jean Kirkpatrick, to Richard Holbrooke--shows that directness and forcefulness are assets, not hindrances, to effectiveness there.

We all know Mr. Bolton is perhaps not the world's most beloved manager, nor one to keep his temper entirely under wraps. Perhaps, Mr. President, that evokes a certain sympathy and empathy from this individual, although it is well known that on no occasion have I ever become emotionally involved in anything.

I am sorry about a little levity here.

Seriously, I ask my colleagues is it unique to Mr. Bolton to be strong in his views and opinions? If a temper and an unorthodox management style were disqualifiers from Government service, I would bet a large number of people in Washington would be out of a job.

It is worth wondering not whether Mr. Bolton is a mild, genteel diplomat--we know he is not--but rather whether he is the representative we need at the United Nations. We need an ambassador who truly knows the U.N. We need an ambassador who is willing to shake up an organization that requires serious reform. No one knows better than the Senator from Minnesota, who is in the chair, who has

been heavily involved in the issues of the U.N. We need an ambassador who has the trust of the President and the Secretary of State. Mr. Bolton, it seems to me, has what it takes for the job.

I am reminded, on the judges issue and in this issue, elections do have consequences. I believe there are significant numbers of the American people who do take into consideration the consequences of a Presidential election, and that is the earned right of a President, under anything other than unusual circumstances, to pick his team. There were nominees of the previous Clinton administration I didn't agree with, I would not have selected but because President Clinton was elected President, I voted for his nominees on that basis.

The U.N. is a vital organization to the world and to the national interests of the United States. It is not perfect by any means, and John Bolton knows this. There has been talk that the nomination of Mr. Bolton was an indication of the administration's disdain for multilateral diplomacy. I cannot believe Mr. Bolton wishes to be dispatched for 4 years to an ineffective body, unloved by the United States. I do believe he wants to work actively to reform the U.N., make it stronger and better. Mr. Bolton, seeing clearly the U.N.'s strengths and its weaknesses, will be well positioned to improve the organization and America's relationship with him.

As the Chair well knows, what kind of a U.N. is it that has Libya, Cuba, and Zimbabwe as part of its Human Rights Commission? Is it all right with the U.N. today? We are seeing more and more indications of the Oil-for-Food scandal which, again, the Senator from Minnesota, the Chair, has carefully examined. There is a crying need for reform.

I am pleased the Secretary General of the U.N. has made proposals for reform. I support those and believe perhaps we need more. Again, it seems to me Mr. Bolton sees clearly the strengths and weaknesses, and he would be well positioned to help in this reform effort. Let's not forget that it desperately needs improving. It is hard to take an organization that has countries such as I mentioned that are members of the Human Rights Commission or whose General Assembly equates Zionism with racism. But at the moment, a great opportunity presents itself. The panel named by the Secretary General, on which one of my most respected Americans and beloved Americans, Brent Scowcroft, served, has recently issued its list of recommendations to transform the U.N. Kofi Annan has presented his own serious plan to implement these recommendations.

In other words, I argue that right now the U.N. is in a unique moment, perhaps, in its history; and because of the scandals associated with it, it is open to reform. We need a strong personality, in my view, and a knowledgeable one to help bring about those reforms.

But without hard work and pressure, nothing will happen. Over the years, the U.N. has proven itself to be remarkably resistant to change. I believe John Bolton could provide the medicine the United Nations needs.

As I mentioned earlier, elections have consequences, and one consequence of President Bush's reelection is he actually should have the right to select officials of his choice. I stress this because the President nominates not the Democrats' selection, nor mine, nor that of any other Senator, but his own choice. I mentioned that when President Clinton was elected, I didn't share the policy views of some of the officials he nominated, but I voted to confirm them, knowing the President has a right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best.

The Foreign Relations Committee is examining whether Mr. Bolton has engaged in truly unacceptable behavior that would disqualify him for office. I believe, unless we see a pattern of inappropriate conduct-- which so far I have not--I believe the Senate must move forward expeditiously to confirm John Bolton as America's ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. President, as I criticize some of the activities of the U.N., there are other activities of the U.N. going on as we speak that I think require America's presence. The situation in Darfur, Sudan, for example, is one that cries out for American participation in the decisionmaking process because one could draw a scenario where under extreme circumstances, to prevent genocide, American troops, or certainly American support in the form of logistics and other areas, could be heavily involved, as well as expenditure of American tax dollars, which already constitutes a significant portion of the financing of the United Nations.

So I hope we can set a time and date certain for a vote on Mr. Bolton. As I said, if somebody has information that would disqualify him, that is fine. I don't think he or anybody else deserves a long, drawn-out, exhausting process which damages our ability to participate in the U.N. and also may damage the character of a good man.

I hope we will act as expeditiously as possible. I have great respect for the Foreign Relations Committee and its chairman, Senator Lugar, all members, and the ranking member, Senator Biden. But I certainly hope they realize inordinate delay is not healthy. I, having had the opportunity of knowing Mr. Bolton for many years, believe he would do an outstanding job as our ambassador to the United Nations.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, Salazar, and Feinstein in introducing legislation to restore and maintain our National Parks by the centennial anniversary of the National Park System in 2016.

Heralding the establishment of the first National Parks, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, ``We have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune.''

And what a priceless fortune Americans enjoy--Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Tetons, Mt. Rushmore, the Everglades, and hundreds of other extraordinary national parks that grace our country. Hundreds of millions of families and visitors from all over the world have visited these parks for recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities as well as the sheer pleasure of being surrounded by their natural beauty or historical significance.

Unfortunately, all of this public enjoyment and use coupled with the lack of adequate financial investment in our parks has left them in a state of disrepair and neglect. A multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog has cast a long shadow over the glory of our national park heritage. An annual operating deficit estimated at $600 million has further diminished the integrity of national park programs and facilities.

The National Parks Centennial Act would allow all Americans to contribute to the restoration of the parks through the creation of a Centennial Fund with monies generated by a check-off box on federal tax returns. The funds collected will be directed to the priority maintenance and operation needs of the national parks to make them fiscally sound by 2016. What better way or time to demonstrate that ``we are worthy of the good fortune of our parks''?

I commend the National Parks Conservation Association for promoting this sound and innovative approach to remedying the significant deterioration of our parks. A companion House bill has been introduced by Representatives Souder and Baird with solid bipartisan support.

Surely this is legislation that we can all agree on and support. All of our lives have been enriched by our National Parks. This bill provides an opportunity to show our appreciation to restore and maintain our country's cultural and natural heritage for generations to come. The passage of this legislation will ensure that our national parks will have a glorious 100th birthday to celebrate. Let's get on with it!

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, Salazar, and Feinstein in introducing legislation to restore and maintain our National Parks by the centennial anniversary of the National Park System in 2016.

Heralding the establishment of the first National Parks, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, ``We have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune.''

And what a priceless fortune Americans enjoy--Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Tetons, Mt. Rushmore, the Everglades, and hundreds of other extraordinary national parks that grace our country. Hundreds of millions of families and visitors from all over the world have visited these parks for recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities as well as the sheer pleasure of being surrounded by their natural beauty or historical significance.

Unfortunately, all of this public enjoyment and use coupled with the lack of adequate financial investment in our parks has left them in a state of disrepair and neglect. A multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog has cast a long shadow over the glory of our national park heritage. An annual operating deficit estimated at $600 million has further diminished the integrity of national park programs and facilities.

The National Parks Centennial Act would allow all Americans to contribute to the restoration of the parks through the creation of a Centennial Fund with monies generated by a check-off box on federal tax returns. The funds collected will be directed to the priority maintenance and operation needs of the national parks to make them fiscally sound by 2016. What better way or time to demonstrate that ``we are worthy of the good fortune of our parks''?

I commend the National Parks Conservation Association for promoting this sound and innovative approach to remedying the significant deterioration of our parks. A companion House bill has been introduced by Representatives Souder and Baird with solid bipartisan support.

Surely this is legislation that we can all agree on and support. All of our lives have been enriched by our National Parks. This bill provides an opportunity to show our appreciation to restore and maintain our country's cultural and natural heritage for generations to come. The passage of this legislation will ensure that our national parks will have a glorious 100th birthday to celebrate. Let's get on with it!

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Regulation of Indian Gaming.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I think amendments have been called up in the regular order. I ask the Senator why he would have reluctance to call up these amendments. If someone objects to it, then I will start objecting to the calling up of other amendments, if that is the way Members want the Senate to work. I understand this is a pretty straightforward amendment. The University of Hawaii's library is going to get $10 million for free on something that has nothing to do with Afghanistan, Iraq, the tsunami, or anything else. If somebody wants to object, I would like to inform my colleagues that we will start objecting to amendments being called up. It is a pretty straightforward amendment that strikes a $10 million earmark for the University of Hawaii library and the legislative rider for the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority; is that correct?

I ask my friend, why don't we bring them up? If somebody objects, then I will object to other amendments being brought up, particularly ones that are this straightforward.

Does the Senator have a response?

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

Mr. President, I happen to have been at the meeting that the Senator from Pennsylvania--whom I admire and respect enormously-- had with the Secretary of the Navy. I was so proud of the Secretary of the Navy because unequivocally the Secretary of the Navy said: No, we do not want this money, we do not have the technology, we do not have the design for this, this is not one of our requirements, and we do not want to spend $40 million in this fashion. It was as strong a statement as I have ever heard from the Secretary of the Navy.

This is basically a $40 million giveaway of the taxpayers' dollars to a private corporation that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with it. The language of the bill says ``support'' high-speed military sealift and other military purposes.

Maybe there are other military purposes. There is no design today for a high-speed military sealift. I wish there were. It is affordable. But the fact is that there is not. The fact is the Navy unequivocally said they do not want taxpayers' dollars, defense dollars, spent on this port in the city of Philadelphia, another legislative rider.

This has nothing to do with Afghanistan, it has nothing to do with the tsunami, it has nothing to do with Iraq, and it has nothing to do with the Navy's requirements for a high-speed military sealift capability. This is really an egregious example of what happens in appropriations bills because there has never been a hearing before the Armed Services Committee nor any consideration in the Armed Services Committee of this particular request and would not be because it is not something we would rationally consider. But we put it on--$40 million worth on an appropriations at a time when the GAO says:

If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for

deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases.

And Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says:

It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address

the competing claims.

Which is our trade deficit as well as our burgeoning Federal deficit.

We do not need to spend the $40 million. I appreciate the efforts Senator Specter has made, over many years, for the city of Philadelphia and the Navy yard. I can guarantee the Senator from Philadelphia that a lawsuit will probably hire some more lawyers. But if he thinks it is going to reverse a BRAC decision and reopen the Philadelphia Navy Shipyard as a naval shipyard, it will be one of the more fantastic outcomes in the history of the United States of America.

Again, I respect his advocacy for the Port of Philadelphia. I respect his belief that somehow we are going to come up with a high-speed military sealift. That vision and view is not shared by the Armed Services Committee nor by the Secretary of the Navy nor the Secretary of Defense. I hope we will be able to pass this, and I am sure we probably will not.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. It was in last year's Omnibus appropriations bill, it was not in the Defense appropriations bill. It was not authorized in the Defense authorization bill.

Let me tell you what is so egregious about it. In the appropriations bill, in the Omnibus appropriations bill, it says, blah, blah, blah:

. . . for a grant to Philadelphia Regional Port Authority,

to be used solely for the purpose of construction, by and for

a Philadelphia-based company. . . .

Here we are in an Omnibus appropriations bill we passed last year that not only designates $40 million that needs

to be spent but without competition, without scrutiny, without examination:

. . . by and for a Philadelphia-based company established

to operate high-speed, advanced-design vessels for the

transport of high-value, time-sensitive cargoes in the

foreign commerce of the United States, of a marine cargo

terminal and IT network for high-speed commercial vessels

that is capable of supporting military sealift requirements.

Last year, it was astonishing that we would put in an omnibus appropriation a requirement that $40 million be spent by and for a Philadelphia-based company. In other words, a company in Seattle or a company in Charleston or a company in Oklahoma, they couldn't compete for this. It had to be a Philadelphia-based company. What is it about Philadelphia-based companies that warrants them receiving a $40 million contract without competition from anybody else?

I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, this is egregious. We should not be designating certain cities as a base for any company to compete for any contract of any kind.

I yield the floor.

Is the Senator aware--I misspoke. This is the language in this bill designating it for a Philadelphia-based company. Designating it for a Philadelphia-based company is in this legislation before us. I hope that is clear.

I do.

Two more.

Mr. President, I do not want to take any more of the body's time. I would point out this provision appeared in the conference report of the Omnibus appropriations bill, which meant I never had a chance to propose an amendment to strike that $40 million because it was in the conference report. It was never in the original omnibus which would have been--or Defense Appropriations Committee bill and considered on the floor of the Senate. So I had no opportunity.

The Senator from Pennsylvania asked why we didn't object then. It is because I couldn't. I had an up-or-down vote on a bill that was ``that'' high. We had, I believe, less than 24 hours to act on that, much less read it.

If there is any objection to me or consternation about me objecting to it now, I didn't have the opportunity to object to it because $40 million, along with tens of billions of dollars of pork, was stuffed in it last year in this egregious and outrageous process we have evolved into called the Omnibus appropriations bill, and this was stuck in it.

I want to say again, it is not appropriate to designate ``by and for a Philadelphia-based company'' any money, any of our tax dollars. Our tax dollars should be competed for.

With respect to the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, when he says ``the Navy agrees,'' of course the Navy agrees because it is there. But the Navy did not agree in a meeting the Senator from Pennsylvania and I had with the Secretary of the Navy, where they adamantly refused to agree to have this money spent because they have no fast ship even on the drawing boards, much less any that could be based in Philadelphia.

We are going to pass this. I do not believe we can beat it. But now we are in the practice of designating a locality-based company to spend $40 million of American taxpayers' dollars. That is not right.

I will bet there is expertise around the country--even if this were necessary--to be able to compete for this $40 million contract. But now we are designating it to the city of Philadelphia. I wonder if people out in the county might be able, or maybe someone in Pittsburgh might be able to compete for it. Probably not.

This is a wrong way to legislate. In these times of burgeoning fiscal deficits, for us to designate money to be spent by a local-based company is just the wrong way to designate, and I think most Americans would agree.

I do not intend to extend this debate any further. I yield the floor.

I object.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from West Virginia for the purposes of proposing an amendment and then following that, I regain the floor.

Mr. President, I am obviously always glad to accommodate the most distinguished Member of the Senate from West Virginia.

The emergency supplemental appropriations for Defense, the global war on terror, and tsunami relief for 2005 provides critical resources for our men and women in uniform and for our foremost foreign policy priorities. While I recognize the importance of its timely passage, I am concerned it includes a number of provisions that do not constitute ``emergency spending.'' These items clearly should be debated and funded under the regular order.

Before I go further, I would like to congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for the hard work that he and his staff have done in putting together this very vital appropriations measure to pursue the war on terror and, of course, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We ought to ask a basic question: What is the purpose of emergency appropriations? It is twofold. First, it is supposed to provide funding for critical expenditures beyond what was anticipated in the President's annual budget request; second, it is supposed to pay for vital priorities that simply cannot wait until next year's budget.

What are the common elements? The unexpected and the time sensitive. Simply put, the purpose of the supplemental appropriations bill is to fund our country's urgent and unanticipated needs.

We have to consider this in the context of a couple of comments that have been made recently. At a conference in February, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said:

If we are to continue on our present path, we'll see

pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases.

GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture.

If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending

by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and

a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo

is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable.

And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will

become and the less transition time we will have.

Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans?

Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress:

(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one

certainty is that the resolution of this situation will

require difficult choices and that the future performance of

the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be

easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources

or raising financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to

determine how best to address the competing claims.

He said it falls on Congress. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree we are in real trouble. We are in real trouble. Here is a radical idea for my colleagues to consider to help secure our economic future: Stop using scarce Federal dollars, taxpayers' dollars to fund unnecessary earmarks and all the other frivolous projects that do nothing to provide for the greater good of our Nation.

A case in point of what this legislation is and should be all about is the urgent need of Balad Air Base in Iraq, a U.S. Army camp on the very front line of the war on terror. The service members who live there have nicknamed it ``Mortaritaville'' because of the frequency of insurgent mortar attacks. Balad is quickly becoming a hub for military operations in the Sunni Triangle and is home to more than 20,000 U.S. troops. As a result, the camp's infrastructure is becoming overwhelmed and requires more than $63 million to remain functional and effective. This camp needs emergency funding.

The Department of Defense listed construction of a hospital facility, command and control buildings, and related equipment among its emergency needs for Balad, and appropriators in the House and Senate have rightly agreed to such funding. The DOD and our appropriators recognize these improvements to Balad are critical to our efforts in Iraq and the broader war on terror, and this is why we have an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund these types of needs.

The bill includes many important provisions such as increased death benefits, military operational costs, recapitalization of equipment, and research and development associated with the war on terror to which I lend my strongest support.

For example, this bill provides $1.285 billion in assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan; $5.7 billion for the security forces of Iraq; $227 million for counternarcotics activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and $44 million for humanitarian assistance in Darfur, Sudan.

The foreign affairs provisions of this bill are remarkably free of pork. As one who supports ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent properly, I commend my colleagues and the chairman for their restraint in this area. Unfortunately, due to its ``must pass'' nature, a number of unauthorized provisions and funding not requested by the President and unrelated to defense or foreign affairs have been included in this bill, and literally hundreds of amendments have been attempted to be added to the bill. The administration's proposed definition of an emergency requirement is ``a necessary expenditure that is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent.''

We should do everything in our power to ensure this bill passes. But we must also ensure every item in it is of a true emergency nature.

It is evident that some of my colleagues misunderstand the purpose of supplemental appropriations, and continue to seek to add spending to this bill that should be addressed as part of the regular appropriations process. In fact, there is an unmistakable trend turning emergency supplementals into a second budget request. Many programs that should be in the baseline budget are somehow finding their way into this supplemental. We must not allow this trend to continue--we must not allow the supplemental to become a de facto second budget.

Let's look at a few examples of the kind of non-emergency spending that has found its way into this bill.

There is $10 million for the University of Hawaii Library. I was unaware that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was also being fought at the University of Hawaii's library.

There is $2.4 million to the Forest Service to repair damage to national forest lands--surely a necessary expense--but one that should be funded through the proper process, beginning with an authorization and testimony by officials from the Forest Service in a public hearing.

There is $23 million to the Capitol Police for the construction of an ``off-site delivery facility.'' I'll be the first one around here to praise the U.S. Capitol police for the good work that they do--I am sure this facility is a high priority to them. But, again, let's provide funding for this through the proper process--public hearings, authorizing legislation, and the proper appropriations vehicle.

There is language in the bill to increase authorized funds for a fish hatchery in Fort Peck, Montana, from $20 million to $25 million. I would like to know how a ``multi-species fish hatchery'' is related to the War on Terror. Does the author of such language believe the hatched fish may enlist in our armed forces? Was it requested by the President as an emergency need? No. Is this authorization related to the stated purpose of the supplemental? No.

The bill also includes language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to analyze the viability of a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande Silvery Minnow is a stout silvery minnow with moderately small eyes and a small mouth. Adults minnows may reach 3.5 inches in total length. Perhaps the silvery minnow could enlist with the Fort Peck, MT fish. I will await the Secretary's study.

The bill includes $500,000 for a study of wind energy in North Dakota and South Dakota. I believe we can all agree that this expenditure earmark is not urgent. In fact, I am not certain there is a need for a study as the wind energy potential in the Dakotas is well-established. And I don't know what it has to do with fighting the war on terror or aiding the tsunami disaster victims.

Another $500,000 is earmarked to the University of Nevada Reno for the Oral History of the Negotiated Settlement project. I ask my colleagues, how is this useful to the war on terror? How is this an emergency need?

No bill would be complete without several projects for the State of Alaska. The bill includes language that addresses how the Agriculture Department pays dairy farmers in Alaska. I certainly don't wish to neglect our Alaskan dairy farmers, but I cannot support prioritizing their payment issues over the needs of our soldiers.

The bill includes $175,000 not requested by the President to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from the Christina River in Delaware. That particular vessel has been at the bottom of the Christina River for more than a decade, is not endangering commercial traffic on the river, and I am sure Congress can wait to fund its removal during the regular appropriations process.

Another $55 million is earmarked for a wastewater treatment facility in Desoto County, MS. How exactly does this help the troops?

Not only do I have concerns with some of the provisions the Appropriations Committee included in this bill, as I have highlighted, I am very troubled by some of the amendments being proposed. I am well aware that many of my colleagues--and their staffs--have expressed frustrations about my objections to their amendments. I have, and will continue, to object to adopting certain amendments by unanimous consent. This is an ``emergency supplemental''--its not a Christmas wish list. I frankly do not understand the managers willingness to agree to some of these proposals. Some of them sound reasonable, but who can be sure? That is why the President's request is so important-- it is thought out and designed to carry out specific objectives that are urgent and necessary. I do not particularly care for being in the position of ``bad cop'', but so be it. But I cannot agree to unanimous approval of amendments that appear more wishful and urgent. For example, $1 million for lobster disease in the northeast. I do not doubt that this may be a problem but it simply does not belong on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. There is legislation regarding State regulation of hunting and fishing. I support this concept, and even cosponsored a bill last year to reaffirm the authority of State governments to regulate their own hunting and fishing programs. But the simple

fact remains that tacking this legislation onto a war-time emergency supplemental is both inappropriate and unnecessary. We can and should pass this bill through the regular legislative process.

Tomorrow I will be joining with my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, in offering amendments to strike the most egregious, unnecessary, and non-emergency provisions from this bill. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to keep this important legislation free from non-essential, pork barrel projects.

Let me close by noting that I appreciate the hard work of the Appropriations Committee and their staff. Field visits were conducted in Afghanistan and the Middle East as the Committee diligently researched the DoD's many requests pursuant to the war on terror. But I am concerned about their decision to include unnecessary, nonemergency earmarks in this bill and the accompanying report. When considering military construction projects like those in Balad, Iraq, consideration was taken to determine whether the project was truly of an emergency nature. Why did the Committee not apply the same consideration to the fish hatchery in Montana?

As I mentioned, on tomorrow I have a couple of amendments we will be seeking votes on. I hope we realize we have a looming deficit, a trade deficit, and unanticipated expenses concerning the war in Iraq. There was one high-ranking Defense official at the time of the beginning of the war in Iraq who said the oil revenues would pay for United States expenses. We are now up to close to $300 billion and we are not yet able to reduce our forces. I think we ought to take into consideration the fact that we will have continued, very significant expenses associated with the conflict in Iraq and in Afghanistan before we begin appropriating money for fish hatcheries and for libraries.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 113, a bill to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, our Nation is facing very difficult fiscal realities which are only going to become more difficult and expensive the longer we wait to take action. The Federal

Government can no longer afford ``business as usual.'' According to the GAO, the unfunded Federal financial burden for public debt, including future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. At what point do we listen to the wake up call?

The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has recently warned Congress and the Nation that, ``In the end, the consequences for the U.S. economy of doing nothing could be severe. But the benefits of taking sound, timely action could extend many decades into the future.'' We must all work together to reduce the crippling $412 billion budget deficit and the mounting unfunded Federal financial burden.

I commend the administration for submitting a budget request that proposes reduced funding for a number of programs. I clearly understand that every program is important to certain constituencies, and Medicaid is at the top of the list for many. The Medicaid program provides critical services to some of the most vulnerable people in our nation. In my home State of Arizona, we have an outstanding Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, that represents a model for other States.

Unfortunately, not every state Administers its program as efficiently as Arizona. The reality is, Medicaid costs are skyrocketing out of control. It is time we took a long hard look at this program--as every other program for that matter and develop proposals to ensure that Medicaid will continue to serve the neediest Americans over the long term.

Let me be clear. I do not support across the board cuts to the Medicaid program. In fact, I believe such an action could have a disastrous effect on many important efforts that ensure access to care for many Americans who have nowhere else to turn. Additionally, I recognize that cuts to Medicaid that result in reduction of covered individuals would flood hospital emergency rooms with additional uninsured patients, forcing hospitals to absorb additional cost for uncompensated care. Arizona has one of the highest uninsured populations in the country and a large number of undocumented immigrants, our hospitals are already struggling to absorb the cost of providing uncompensated care, dramatically reducing medicare eligible populations could severely impact the hospital system in my State and in many others.

In debating potential cuts to the Medicaid program, we must work to ensure that the federal government does not further exacerbate these existing problems. Any effort to reform Medicaid must be made in a cautious and deliberative manner.

We simply must start to control spending and make some very difficult decisions among competing priorities. I was pleased to have joined with Senators Smith and Bingaman in cosponsoring S. 338, the bipartisan commission on Medicaid Act of 2005, which was introduced on February 9, 2005. I cannot vote for the pending amendment because I believe strongly that the fiscal reality of Medicaid must be addressed sooner rather than later. And I have been around here long enough to know that too often we need to have our feet held to the fire to really make meaningful progress on difficult issues. So I hope that we can agree to cut waste in the Medicaid program and also create a bipartisan task force to provide recommendations for how best to reform the program for the long run. In my judgment, only through comprehensive reforms can we prevent across the board cuts in Medicaid in the long term. We should begin our reform efforts today.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Salazar in introducing the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act. This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Chavez. Mr. Chavez's legacy is an inspiration to us all and he will be remembered for helping Americans to transcend distinctions of experience and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve appropriate sites that are significant to his life.

Cesar Chavez, an Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. While his formal education ended in the eighth grade, his insatiable intellectual curiosity and determination helped make him known as one of the great American leaders for his successes in organizing migrant farm workers. His efforts on behalf of some of the most oppressed individuals in our society is an inspiration and through his work he made America a bigger and a better nation.

While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender of worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. He gave a voice to those who had no voice. In his words, ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community . . . our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.''

This legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously during the last Congress, has received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my fellow Arizonans, but from Americans all across the Nation. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites significant to Chavez's life meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for future legislation that would then designate land for the appropriate sites to become historic landmarks.

Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. His motto in life, ``si se puede'' or it can be done, epitomizes his life's work and continues to influence those wishing to improve our Nation. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Salazar in introducing the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act. This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Chavez. Mr. Chavez's legacy is an inspiration to us all and he will be remembered for helping Americans to transcend distinctions of experience and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve appropriate sites that are significant to his life.

Cesar Chavez, an Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. While his formal education ended in the eighth grade, his insatiable intellectual curiosity and determination helped make him known as one of the great American leaders for his successes in organizing migrant farm workers. His efforts on behalf of some of the most oppressed individuals in our society is an inspiration and through his work he made America a bigger and a better nation.

While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender of worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. He gave a voice to those who had no voice. In his words, ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community . . . our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.''

This legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously during the last Congress, has received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my fellow Arizonans, but from Americans all across the Nation. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites significant to Chavez's life meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for future legislation that would then designate land for the appropriate sites to become historic landmarks.

Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. His motto in life, ``si se puede'' or it can be done, epitomizes his life's work and continues to influence those wishing to improve our Nation. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.