Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing a modified version of S. 849, the Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act, which I cosponsored last year with Senator Kyl. Since introducing that bill, I have met with hundreds of Arizonans and learned first-hand of the significant water issues raised by this proposed exchange of about 50,000 acres of private and Federal land in Northern Arizona. I am introducing this modified version of the legislation with the sincere hope of achieving a compromise agreement that can be enacted prior to adjournment.

Let me be clear. I am not offering amendments to this bill to slow its progress, but rather I want to take this opportunity to address one of the most crucial challenges facing Arizona: sound management of its precious water resources. The persistent drought that is draining our reservoirs makes all of us aware of the limits of our water supplies. I strongly believe that the State of Arizona is at a crucial point where decisions regarding growth and water use must be made with the assurance of long-term availability of water supplies without draining our ground and surface waters dry. I am afraid we are currently on a collision course with the reality of our finite and dwindling water supplies and the future economic and environmental welfare of the State.

In the context of this proposed exchange, it would be irresponsible of the Federal Government to transfer public lands into private hands in an area where water problems currently exist without an understanding of the potential water supply impacts. I have spent considerable time and effort in trying to develop a reasoned, compromise proposal that balances the various Arizona interests and achieves a fair and equitable exchange in the public interest. Therefore, it is my hope that the release of this amended bill with a new title addressing the associated water issues will be carefully considered by all interested parties.

My objective is to encourage the formation of a partnership between Federal, State, and local stakeholders in order to facilitate sound, science-based water resource planning and management in the Verde River Basin. In my view, the development of such a collaborative decision- making body, modeled on the Upper San Pedro Partnership, would be a vital step in assuring the wise use of the finite water resources within the Verde River Basin.

An earlier draft proposal of the partnership title to this bill was widely circulated in Northern Arizona and generated productive discussion and comment. This valuable input is reflected in the measure I am offering today. It encourages the creation of a multi-stakeholder partnership and clarifies the Federal role in providing scientific, technical, and financial assistance to State and local water resource planning and management efforts. With this important support, I expect that State and local interests that share ground and surface water resources will come together to advance protection and wise use of finite water supplies.

I became fully aware of the crucial need for this Federal assistance through public meetings I held last December in Flagstaff and Camp Verde. More than 600 people gathered in Camp Verde to express their strongly held views of the proposed land exchange. The primary concern voiced was whether or not adequate water supplies are available in the area to provide for future development given that residents are already experiencing water supply problems. The U.S. Geological Survey presented information about its ongoing studies and what is not known about the hydrologic systems or water use impacts within the Verde Basin. The fact is that we simply do not have sufficient information to determine the quantity of water supply available over the long-term without adverse effects.

I believe that it would be irresponsible of the Federal Government to transfer lands into private hands in an area where water problems already exist without an understanding of the potential impacts. That is why I am interested in expediting essential water studies in the Verde Basin to provide a scientific basis for sound decisionmaking by the partnership. In the short-term, I envision that the first task of the partnership would be to make a recommendation, based on a water budget analysis for the Verde Valley, regarding available water supply for future use on the Federal parcel in Camp Verde. Long-term water resource planning and management efforts within the region could also be developed through the partnership and informed by the ongoing water studies and analyses.

I would like to briefly explain some of the provisions in this modified bill.

First, under Title I of the bill, it would allow the cities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde, as well as several local camps, the option to purchase lands directly from the Forest Service if they are unable to reach an agreement to purchase such lands from the Yavapai Ranch. These communities and camps are very interested in exploring the economic opportunities that would be afforded through the acquisition of certain lands currently held by the Federal Government. The bill also would eliminate the 820-acre Federal parcel in Clarkdale from exchange, at the request of that community.

Next, the bill establishes a new Title II, which is designed to establish a framework to begin addressing the very serious water resource and management issues in Northern Arizona. The purpose of this title is to authorize assistance for a collaborative and science-based water resource planning and management partnership for the Verde River Basin, consisting of members that represent Federal, State, and local agencies, along with economic, environmental, and community water interests. The bill language makes it clear that this is not a Federal intrusion into State and local jurisdiction and responsibility for water management and control.

Under Title II, Federal assistance would be authorized upon the formation of a Verde River Basin Partnership. The measure would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to assist the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the Yavapai Water Advisory Council by participating in the formation of the partnership. While the partnership would not be a Federal entity, it would be eligible for Federal assistance through the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior.

The amended bill directs the partnership to develop a plan for conducting water resource studies within the Verde River Basin. The plan would include; a list of specific studies and analyses that are needed to support the planning and management objectives of the partnership, identify any ongoing or completed water resource or riparian studies that are relevant to water resource planning and management for the Verde River Basin, provide study timeliness and cost estimates, and designate as a study priority the compilation of a water budget analysis for the Verde Valley.

To assist the partnership, the bill directs the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with ADWR, to prepare and submit a report to the Partnership that provides a water budget analysis of the portion of the Verde River Basin within the Verde Valley. The partnership would then use the information, along with any other relevant information, and submit a preliminary report with its findings and recommendations regarding long-term available water supply within the Verde Valley to the Secretary, the Governor of Arizona, and representatives of the Verde Valley communities. Following this preliminary report, the partnership is expected to continue its work and submit a comprehensive report to the Secretary and the Governor of Arizona within 4 years. The comprehensive report would include the results of any water resource assessments conducted

under this in the Verde River Basin. It also would identify: any areas in the Verde River Basin that are determined to have groundwater deficits or other current or potential water supply problems; long-term water supply management options for communities and water resources within the basin; and water resource analyses and monitoring needed to support the implementation of management options.

Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a memorandum of understanding authorizing the U.S. Geological Survey to access Forest Service land, including stream gauges, weather stations, wells, or other points of data collection on the Forest Service land, to carry out necessary water studies.

I want to do my part in moving the proposed land exchange forward, and it must be done in a manner that is fair to the current residents of Arizona and the Federal taxpayers. In order to do so, it simply must address the affected area's water supply. I remain hopeful that all the interested parties who strongly support the proposed exchange will carefully consider the proposal that I am introducing today.

Mr. President, the United States has enjoyed a close relationship with Morocco since 1777, when Morocco became the first nation to recognize the sovereignty of our fledgling Government. Since then we have stood together through thick and thin, and Morocco today remains one of America's dear friends. This free-trade agreement, FTA, will further strengthen the bond between our two nations, and illustrates the benefits of greater economic ties with countries in the greater Middle East.

Initially, the decision to begin negotiations with Morocco was controversial. But Morocco's economic liberalization and political reform efforts, combined with its role as a stabilizing force in the region, made the decision a simple one.

The trade negotiations produced an agreement that will render more than 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products duty-free immediately. U.S. investors in Morocco will be increasingly able to rely on a secure, predictable legal framework mandated by the FTA. U.S. banks, insurance companies, telecommunications companies and others will get new access to markets within Morocco.

In addition, U.S. firms are guaranteed a fair and transparent process for selling goods and services to a wide range of Moroccan Government entities, via the FTA's government contracting anti-corruption provisions. These kinds of measures are what we expect from a free- trade agreement. Unfortunately, this agreement also

contains protectionist language antithetical to the tenets of free trade.

As with the Australian FTA approved by the Senate last week, and the Singapore agreement that went into effect in January, the United States Trade Representative included language that could impair Congress's ability to pass and implement drug importation legislation. Such legislation is not only something Congress has worked on for the past several years, but has also enacted.

The provisions USTR slipped into the Singapore, Australia and Morocco FTAs have significant implications for drug importation. Let us be clear about this language--it is antifree trade, serves only to block American consumers from accessing lower cost goods and services, and contravenes clear congressional intent.

Congress has repeatedly voted, with bipartisan majorities, to allow drug importation. States and local governments are doing the same. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that they have a right to import more affordable medicines. So a simple question comes to mind: what is our Trade Representative, who is charged with representing the interests of the American people, doing? Why deliberately include language in bilateral trade agreements that could thwart importation efforts? Why flagrantly disregard the intent of Americans and their elected representatives? It seems to me that the special interests have again found friendly territory.

When Americans wonder how this continues to happen, they should take a glance at the list of intellectual property ``advisors'' that worked with the negotiators. These advisors include representatives from drug companies, the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, and other lobbyists with a direct interest in blocking drug importation. How many public health and consumer advocacy groups were included on this committee? Zero.

The Singapore FTA was the first free-trade agreement to include language that could impact drug importation. The Morocco FTA must be the last.

Our trade negotiators must be less mindful of special interests and more responsive to the express intent of the Congress. We granted the President trade promotion authority, TPA, in 2002 to demonstrate our Nation's re-energized commitment to negotiating strong free-trade agreements. TPA was designed to lead to free trade, not more protection.

This agreement is not the first in which the administration has made use of TPA to promote its politically expedient policy priorities. Last year, immigration provisions were included in the Singapore and Chile FTAs. If the Administration is to continue to enjoy the privilege of TPA, trade agreements must no longer be vehicles that include items rightfully addressed by Congress under the Constitution.

The United States has been and should be the leading promoter of an open global marketplace. Steel tariffs, agricultural subsidies in the farm bill, and other forms of protection, however, have damaged America's free-trade credentials. If special interest carve-outs, like the one for the pharmaceutical industry in this FTA, continue to pollute our trade agreements, we will all be worse off. Our economy will suffer and our leadership role on trade will further decline.

I will vote yes, but let me reiterate what I said last week with respect to the Australia agreement: Should another FTA being negotiated now or in the future come before the Senate with similar protections for special interests, I will find it even more difficult to vote in favor of it.

Mr. President, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the administration is not perfect. The distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee would agree with me on that point.

It is often said around here that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This agreement for which we vote on implementing legislation today passes the ``good'' test, but barely.

Throughout my career in public service, I have been an ardent supporter of free trade. Opening markets to the free flow of goods and services benefits America, benefits our trading partners. Trade liberalization creates jobs, expands economic growth, and provides consumers with access to lower cost goods and services. The North American Free Trade Agreement, despite criticism from some, has increased our cross-border trade between our northern and southern neighbors by incredible amounts of money, creating economic growth and prosperity on both sides of the border.

In my judgment, free trade should mean truly free trade. There are some portions of this agreement which take admirable steps in that direction. For example, over 99 percent of the manufactured goods traded between our two countries--manufactured goods--will be duty and quota free and textile and apparel tariffs will be phased out.

According to the International Trade Commission, U.S. consumers will receive a net welfare benefit increase of between $438 million and $639 million if the agreement is fully implemented.

Ideally, this free-trade agreement would reach 100-percent duty-free treatment and tariff elimination immediately but I recognize that may not be possible.

What I find truly offensive are protections for special interests such as dairy, beef, and sugar. Even these protections, however, pale in comparison with the language in this agreement that covers patented pharmaceutical products.

I am astonished by the decision of the U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, for whom I happen to have the greatest admiration and appreciation. I am astonished that he would include language which would impair our ability to pass and implement drug importation legislation.

The Singapore Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect on January 1, was the first free-trade agreement to include language that could impact drug importation. In a side letter of understanding between our respective Trade Representatives, both nations agreed the language would not prevent Singapore from engaging in the parallel importation of pharmaceuticals. Thus, the U.S. Trade Representative effectively made the provisions applicable only to the United States.

USTR claims this language is consistent with longstanding U.S. patent law. If that is indeed the case, and if Singapore is not obligated to abide by the language, then why is the language included in the agreement? I suspect it was included in order to protect powerful special interests and to provide a template on which to base intellectual property provisions in future free-trade agreements.

In fact, the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Chemicals and Allied Products, which advised U.S. negotiators on this provision, stated that this language ``should not be viewed as setting any ceilings for the intellectual

property chapters for future free-trade agreements; rather, each individual free-trade agreement should be viewed as setting a new baseline for future free-trade agreements.''

This pharmaceutical language was slipped into the Singapore FTA below the radar screen, without recognition of its potential implications for drug importation. Since that time, similar drug provisions have cropped up again in both the Australia FTA before us and the recently completed Morocco FTA.

Let's be clear about this language. It is antithetical to the spirit of free trade and serves only to block American consumers from accessing lower cost goods and services.

Not only does the intellectual property language in the Australia FTA offend all free traders, it also contravenes clear congressional intent. Let's look at the facts. In 2000, Congress passed the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act, MEDS Act, to allow American consumers to import lower cost prescription drugs from 25 industrialized countries with regulatory systems similar to ours. Although language added to that law acted as a poison pill and effectively prevented importation from taking place, congressional intent was crystal clear: We want to allow Americans to import safe prescription drugs.

In the years after the MEDS Act passed, the cost of prescription drugs has continued to rise, the number of uninsured Americans has continued to grow, and Congress has continued to debate the issue of drug importation. This week, a study from Boston University found that drug spending, as a share of income, rose by 50 percent between 1998 and 2002.

In the last 3 years, several additional importation measures have passed both Houses of Congress with substantial bipartisan support. In States, cities, and counties across the country, governments are implementing programs that would allow their residents to import lower cost prescription drugs. Today, approximately two-thirds of Americans believe they should be able to import lower cost drugs.

Where does this leave us? Congress has repeatedly voted, with bipartisan majorities, to allow drug importation. States and local governments are doing the same. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe they have a right to import cheaper medicine. AARP, the leading advocacy group for senior citizens, recently joined the battle.

So a simple question comes to mind: What is our U.S. Trade Representative, who is charged with representing the interests of the American people, doing? Why deliberately include language in bilateral trade agreements that could thwart importation efforts? Why flagrantly disregard the intent of Americans and their elected representatives? It seems to me that the special interests have found friendly territory.

Now, supporters of this language will claim that nothing in this agreement prevents the Congress from passing legislation with respect to drug importation. They are absolutely correct. No trade agreement can prevent Congress from exercising its constitutional right to pass laws that govern our Nation. However, the language in this trade agreement does tie the hands of Congress, further complicating our efforts to pass a drug importation law.

The USTR general counsel, John Veroneau, testified along these lines last month. He told the House Ways and Means Committee that new legislation on drug importation ``could give rise to an inconsistency between U.S. law and a commitment under this trade agreement.'' Given that similar language is now in not one but three trade agreements, it will presumably present the same problem for each.

Let's be intellectually honest here. It is simply bad policy to enter into bilateral agreements knowing we want to modify domestic law and thereby place ourselves in violation of these various agreements. Imagine Americans' response if they knew that domestic health care policy was being crafted not by their elected officials in Congress but, instead, by free-trade negotiators.

Now that this language is in three agreements, a precedent has been established for future FTAs. Indeed, USTR officials have indicated they intend to pursue similar language in all future FTAs. This means that future drug importation legislation will leave us in violation of our obligations to an ever greater number of trading partners and allies, undoubtedly creating a greater challenge to enacting and implementing importation law.

When Americans wonder how this continues to happen, maybe they should take a glance at the list of intellectual property ``advisors'' who worked with the negotiators. These advisors include representatives from--guess who--drug companies--guess who--the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, and other lobbyists with a direct interest in blocking drug importation. How many public health and consumer advocacy groups were included on this committee? Zero.

There is a popular philosophy among coaches known as game slippage which offers that you can make your team practice all you want, but, invariably, come gametime, some of what was taught in practice will not be applied during the game. I fear the administration is suffering from game slippage. It appears that Congress's intent over the last several years to address drug importation has slipped from the collective conscience of the administration and the U.S. Trade Representative when negotiating gametime comes around.

Our trade negotiators must be less mindful of special interests and more responsive to the express intent of the Congress. We granted the President trade promotion authority in 2002 to demonstrate our Nation's reenergized commitment to negotiating strong free-trade agreements. TPA was designed to lead to free trade, not more protection. Yet we have protectionist measures in this FTA for the pharmaceutical, sugar, beef, and dairy industries that will likely result in higher prices and, in some cases, less supply.

This agreement is not the first in which the administration has made use of TPA to promote its legislative priorities. Last year, immigration provisions were included in the Singapore and Chile FTAs. If the administration is to continue to enjoy the privilege of TPA, trade agreements must no longer be vehicles that include items rightfully addressed by Congress under the Constitution.

The United States has been and should be the leading promoter of an open global marketplace. Steel tariffs, agricultural subsidies in the farm bill, and other forms of protection, however, have damaged America's free-trade credentials. If special interest carve-outs, as the one for the pharmaceutical industry in this FTA, continue to pollute our trade agreements, we will all be worse off. Our economy will suffer and our leadership role on trade will further decline.

I have spoken at length about the very serious drawbacks of the Australia FTA. I will reluctantly support this implementing legislation because it, nevertheless, will have a net positive impact on the American economy. I also will vote for it because of my profound respect for the Government and the people of Australia. They have bravely stood by us for many decades and have shown enormous courage in helping us to fight the global war on terror. We are privileged to call the Australian people friends, and my comments here today should in no way reflect poorly on the proud nation with which we will embark on a new trading relationship.

Mr. President, I will vote yes. But the administration must understand that continuing down a protectionist path harms American consumers and engenders ill will among our allies and trading partners. I support passage of this legislation, but should another FTA being negotiated now or in the future come before the Senate with similar protections for special interests, I will find it extremely difficult to do so again.

FSC/ETI Tax Bill

Mr. President, before I continue, I would like to mention just a word about the FSC/ETI tax bill that we apparently have an agreement to go to conference.

The June 19 editorial in the Washington Times, not known for liberal propaganda, stated:

The ideal solution would have been a quick, simple repeal

of FSC-ETI, which is bad economic policy in any case. . . .

Unfortunately, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill became magnets for special interests. A steady train of lobbyists tacked on $167 billion

in tax breaks over the next 10 years to the Senate bill, while the House bill expanded by $143 billion in similar additions. The Senate bill, for example, includes breaks for NASCAR racetracks and foreign dog-race gamblers, while the House version lavishes its attention upon tobacco growers, timber owners and alcohol distillers. The imminent House-Senate conference, predictably, promises to be a de facto food fight between congressmen, lobbyists and tax watchdogs. And so while the lobbyists duke it out, EU sanctions will continue to rise, and American manufacturers and the U.S. economy will deal with the consequences.

There are many other editorials about how incredible this bill has become and how we have lost any possible sense of what we are doing to our deficit and to the American people. If we pass this bill in its present form, I will do whatever I can to make sure every American knows what we have done here for the special interests in this town. Despite the passage of campaign finance reform, they rule in a way which is almost unprecedented at least in the 22 years I have been a Member of Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been very outspoken in my opposition to this bill, and was one of only five Senators to vote against its passage in May. I voted against it because it was loaded with wasteful spending and tax breaks for special interests and the super rich. With the Nation facing a half-trillion dollar deficit, now is not the time for Congress to be enacting wasteful tax credits.

The proponents of this bill are fond of pointing out that it is ``revenue neutral'' and that all of the tax cuts in the bill are paid for with offsets. I firmly believe that, due to our current fiscal crisis, any proposed offsets would better be used to reduce the deficit. It is incomprehensible to me, at this time of record deficits and debt, coupled with our war against terrorism and the need to secure our homeland, that we would consider risking the future of our manufacturing base and our standing in the international community by wasting time and jeopardizing corrective action while carving out sweet deals for special interests.

We missed a golden opportunity with this issue. We could have passed a good, clean bill months ago that would have brought us back into compliance with World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements and stop the burdensome tariffs now imposed on our manufactures. Unfortunately, the goal of achieving the legislation's underlying worthy purpose has been lost to a host of special interest add-ons.

In a June 19th editorial, The Washington Times, not known

for liberal propaganda, stated: The ideal solution would have

been a quick, simple repeal of FSC/ETI, which is bad economic

policy in any case. Unfortunately, both the House and the

Senate versions of the bill became magnets for the special

interests. A steady train of lobbyists tacked on $167 billion

in tax breaks over the next 10 years to the Senate bill,

while the House bill expanded by $143 billion in similar

additions. The Senate bill, for example, includes breaks for

NASCAR racetracks and foreign dog-race gamblers, while the

House version lavishes its attention upon tobacco

growers, timber owners and alcohol distillers. The imminent

House-Senate conference, predictably, promises to be a de

facto food fight between congressman, lobbyists and tax

watchdogs. And so while the lobbyists duke it out, EU

sanctions will continue to rise and American manufacturers

and the U.S. economy will deal with the consequences.

Let me quote from some other newspapers who have editorialized about this terrible bill.

From The New York Times: What started out as Congress's

urgent obligation to resolve a trade battle with the European

Union has degenerated into an embarrassment as lawmakers and

business lobbyists vie in a costly frenzy of corporate

handouts.

From The Dallas Morning News: The United States'

credibility also is at stake. As a WTO member, the United

States has an obligation to follow the trade body's rulings

or risk undermining the WTO's authority over global trade. .

. . The simple solution would be to end the tax break. But

election-year politics threaten common sense.

From The St. Petersburg Times: Tax cut fever has gripped

lawmakers, and they're beginning to act delusional. . . . The

bill is so irresponsible it deserves to fail.

From The Los Angeles Times: Further driving up the federal

budget deficit with tax breaks will probably worsen U.S.

sales abroad. The more money the Treasury has to borrow to

cover the deficit, the more pressure there is on the Federal

Reserve to raise interest rates to attract those funds,

eventually driving inflation.

An article in the April 19th edition of The Washington Post exposed the Senate-passed bill for what it is and how it became such a monstrosity. The article stated the following:

Congress's task seemed simple enough: Repeal an illegal $5

billion-a-year export subsidy and replace it with some modest

tax breaks to ease the pain on U.S. exporters. But out of

that imperative has emerged one of the most complex, special-

interest-riddled corporate tax bills in years . . . The 930-

page epic is packed with $170 billion in tax cuts aimed at

cruise-ship operators, foreign dog-race gamblers, NASCAR

track owners, bow and arrow makers and Oldsmobile dealers, to

name a few.

The article also quoted a tax lobbyist involved in drafting the bill as saying that it ``has risen to a new level of sleaze. I said a few months ago, any lobbyist worth his salt has something in this bill.''

This is not the way we should be doing the people's business. Incredible deals for the special interests, big tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and other big corporations have already stalled WTO compliance for too long. The manufacturing base of our country will suffer, the economy will suffer, and jobs will suffer. Is that what we want? Is that what the American people want? The answer is no. They deserve better than this, Mr. President. We work for them--not for the big money special interests and their fat cat lobbyists.

As I have said before, we need to start making some tough decisions around here Mr. President. With little legislative time remaining this election year, the Senate would serve the American public far better if it stayed focused on accomplishing the intended purpose of legislating. Unfortunately, this FSC/ETI bill, which is a much needed bill, is being dragged down with the unnecessary weight of billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies, tax breaks, and special exemptions for the special interests.

We have got to restore some sanity to the way we do things here in Washington. The facts are clear, we simply cannot continue to spend and spend and spend while continuing to cut taxes and fund the war against terrorism. It's high time we face up to the challenge and do what's right. Passing this bill, and the others like it of which this body has become so fond, is tantamount to placing a millstone of debt around the necks of our children, grandchildren, and who knows how many future generations of Americans. It has to stop, and I hope this body can find the courage to stop it.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow the Senator from Kansas for a period of 12 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

You are up. Then I asked unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I may require 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to extend from 12 to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, most Americans believe, as I do, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. But only a very small majority, and perhaps not quite a majority, support the idea--at this time--of amending the Constitution to prohibit the States from changing the legal definition of marriage to include any union other than that between a man and a woman. I know that Americans who support a Federal marriage amendment feel very strongly that same sex marriages judged lawful by the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and permitted, for a brief period, unlawfully, in certain other localities, threaten the institution of marriage as a core value of our culture. I know also that many of the opponents of the amendment believe it is purposely divisive, discriminatory and intended to deny some Americans their right to the pursuit of happiness. And I know that many, many of those Americans who do not presently support the amendment, but oppose same-sex marriage do not perceive it is urgently necessary to address this issue by means of amending the most successful and enduring political compact in human history.

This close division of public opinion assures us one thing. A Federal marriage amendment to the Constitution will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor anytime soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today. It is perfectly appropriate for Americans who do feel that strongly today to call the offices of their elected representatives and urge them to support the amendment. But their efforts would be better spent trying to convince a supermajority of the public to share their urgency because until they do there will not be a supermajority in Congress and among State legislatures willing to amend our Constitution.

By my count, there is not at this time even a small majority of senators who would vote for Senator Allard's amendment, much less the 67 votes required by the Constitution. That won't change unless public opinion changes significantly. The founders, wisely, made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend, and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that. Were it any easier I fear we could not make the claim for the Constitution's enduring success that I have just made.

Many, if not most, Americans have reasoned that there is no overriding urgent need to act at this time. And they are right to do so. The legal definition of marriage has always been left to the states to decide, in accordance with the prevailing standards of their neighborhoods and communities. Certainly, that view has prevailed for many years in my party where we adhere to a rather stricter federalism than has always been the case in the prevailing views among our friends in the Democratic Party. Some fear that the decision in Massachusetts will ultimately result in the imposition of different views on marriage in communities where the traditional view of marriage is considered singular and sacred. But there really is insufficient reason presently to fear such a result.

I supported the Defense of Marriage Act adopted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. As my colleagues know, the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, was proposed in response to a decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii which concluded that a law banning same-sex marriages may violate the Equal Protection Clause of Hawaii's constitution. DOMA provides States an exemption from the ``full faith and credit'' clause so that each State would be able to decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex marriage. The law neither compels a State to recognize a same-sex marriage from another State, nor does it prohibit States from recognizing such marriages. It simply protects each State's right to choose how it will define marriage. Currently, 39 States have defense of marriage laws in place. And thus far, there has yet to be a successful challenge to DOMA in Federal Court.

The Defense of Marriage Act represents the quintessentially federalist and Republican approach to this issue. The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed, and imposes a Federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them, and which they feel capable of

resolving should it confront them, again according to local standards and customs.

If a constitution is to be amended, it should be a State constitution. According to a report by the Heritage Foundation, an organization not known for its liberal sympathies, ``the best way to defend against a state court that might seek to overturn State public policy or force recognition of another state's marriage policy is to amend the State constitution to establish a state constitutional marriage policy.'' At this time, 16 States have pending constitutional amendments to protect marriage, and at least 3 others are expected to introduce such amendments soon. Colleagues who have told me of actions taken in this city or that county to impose a legal definition of marriage that conflicts with the prevailing view of marriage in their State have a far less draconian remedy at hand to correct the injustice than amending the United States Constitution--it is in their state legislatures. What evidence do we have that States are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years? The actions by jurists in one court in one state do not represent the death knell to marriage. We will have to wait a little longer to see if Armageddon has arrived. If the Supreme Court of the United States rejects the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional; if State legislatures are frustrated by the decisions of jurists in more states than one, and if state remedies to such judicial activism fail; and finally, if a large majority of Americans come to perceive that their communities' values are being ignored and other standards concerning marriage are being imposed on them against their will, and that elections and state legislatures can provide no remedy then, and only then, should we consider, quite appropriately, amending the Constitution of the United States.

I know passions run high on this issue. Americans who support the Federal marriage amendment do so very forcefully. They want this vote. But they should also know, and we should make sure they do know that it will never be adopted until many more Americans feel as strongly as they do. They have every right to demand a vote, even if the outcome is well-known. There are, of course, many other urgent priorities left to address in this Congress, not the least of which concern the physical security of this country, as Secretary Ridge has recently reminded us. But I have in the past supported legislation I knew lacked the necessary votes to prevail, and still insisted on a vote. In those cases, however, I had much broader public support for the legislation than exists for this proposed amendment. Still, I would normally be inclined to support any procedural motion to allow proponents their vote. But a procedural vote is unlikely to succeed, as we all know. That's why I supported the Democratic leader's offer of a unanimous consent agreement to allow an up or down vote on Senator Allard's amendment. I would very much like an up or down vote on the amendment. That offer was rejected, and it seems at the moment that the only vote on this issue that we're going to be allowed will be a procedural vote. I would not want to obscure my position on this issue by voting to proceed to the amendment, and then, following that vote's failure, having no further opportunity to take my stand by voting, and to be held accountable by my constituents for that vote. So, I am inclined at this time, if this will be our only vote in this debate, to cast a vote that reflects my position on the federal marriage amendment proposed by Senator Allard.

I refer to Federalist Paper 45 to explain my vote, in which James Madison wrote ``the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.'' I stand with Mr. Madison on this question, and against a Federal marriage amendment that denies the States their traditional right and their clear opportunity to resolve this controversy themselves.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act of 2004. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB or ``the Corporation'') through 2011 to carry forth its mission to support the Nation's public broadcasting system. This private, non-profit corporation has not been reauthorized since 1996.

In 1967, Congress created the Corporation, declaring, ``It is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational and cultural purposes.'' Today, the primary function of the CPB is to receive and distribute governmental funds to stations, develop national programming, and maintain universal access to public broadcasting's educational programs and services through 356 public television stations and almost 800 public radio stations.

In addition to authorizing the Corporation, the bill would explicitly provide public broadcast stations the ability to use CPB funds to produce local programming. An April 2004 General Accounting Office (GAO) report noted that 79 percent of the public television stations surveyed found that the amount of local programming they currently produce is not sufficient to meet local community needs. Eighty-five percent of the stations surveyed stated that they do not have adequate funds for local programming or that they would produce more local programming if they could obtain additional sources of funding. The bill would provide the Corporation the explicit authority to award grants for the production and acquisition of local programming and allow stations to use CPB funds supporting the digital transition to produce local digital programming.

Furthermore, the bill would expand the definition of public telecommunications services to capture the services public broadcasters are now providing through their web sites and through digital multicasting. The bill would also allow CPB to recoup some federal funds provided to a public broadcast station if the broadcaster sells the station to an entity that does not offer public broadcasting services.

Reauthorization would allow the CPB to continue carrying out its many responsibilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expeditiously move this measure through the legislative process.

Today the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on public broadcasting. Mr. Ken Burns, a filmmaker, spoke eloquently at the hearing on the benefits public broadcasting provides to local communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Burns' testimony and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act of 2004. This legislation is designed to reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB or ``the Corporation'') through 2011 to carry forth its mission to support the Nation's public broadcasting system. This private, non-profit corporation has not been reauthorized since 1996.

In 1967, Congress created the Corporation, declaring, ``It is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational and cultural purposes.'' Today, the primary function of the CPB is to receive and distribute governmental funds to stations, develop national programming, and maintain universal access to public broadcasting's educational programs and services through 356 public television stations and almost 800 public radio stations.

In addition to authorizing the Corporation, the bill would explicitly provide public broadcast stations the ability to use CPB funds to produce local programming. An April 2004 General Accounting Office (GAO) report noted that 79 percent of the public television stations surveyed found that the amount of local programming they currently produce is not sufficient to meet local community needs. Eighty-five percent of the stations surveyed stated that they do not have adequate funds for local programming or that they would produce more local programming if they could obtain additional sources of funding. The bill would provide the Corporation the explicit authority to award grants for the production and acquisition of local programming and allow stations to use CPB funds supporting the digital transition to produce local digital programming.

Furthermore, the bill would expand the definition of public telecommunications services to capture the services public broadcasters are now providing through their web sites and through digital multicasting. The bill would also allow CPB to recoup some federal funds provided to a public broadcast station if the broadcaster sells the station to an entity that does not offer public broadcasting services.

Reauthorization would allow the CPB to continue carrying out its many responsibilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expeditiously move this measure through the legislative process.

Today the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on public broadcasting. Mr. Ken Burns, a filmmaker, spoke eloquently at the hearing on the benefits public broadcasting provides to local communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Burns' testimony and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the mass human destruction unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan. The stakes in Darfur are extremely high and the death toll could exceed the number killed in Rwanda 10 years ago.

Both Secretary of State Powell and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan have visited Sudan in recent days. Their attempts to promote an end to the killing in Darfur are admirable. The Sudanese Government has agreed to contain the janjaweed militias and allow human rights monitors into Darfur. Yet it is not at all clear that the Government of Sudan is serious. The Sudanese Foreign Minister continues to blame the militias alone for the violence in Darfur, and before Kofi Annan's visit, local authorities cleared the squatter camp he visited.

Now, I have been around for a fair number of years. I have never heard of a situation where the Secretary-General of the United Nations was going to visit a refugee camp--actually it was a squatter camp--and the government comes in the night before and evacuates the whole place. I can imagine how insulting that is to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. And it certainly may give us some insight into the seriousness or lack of seriousness on the part of the Sudanese Government.

Government officials have said that reports of humanitarian catastrophe are overblown, and Sudan's Ambassador to the United States says that despite widespread reports that the Government is using Antonov bombers to attack villages and water wells, that this is false and ``part of a smear campaign against Sudan.''

Mr. President, I received a letter from the Ambassador of Sudan that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

I think this letter may give my colleagues an idea of how Orwellian the situation is because the Ambassador basically denies that any human rights abuses are going on.

The fact is, the Sudanese Government has teamed with the janjaweed to slaughter civilians in a systematic, scorched-earth campaign designed to ethnically cleanse Darfur of black Africans. The Government and its militias have bombed villages, engaged in widespread rape, looted civilian property, and deliberately destroyed homes and water sources. The Government does not oppose the militias, as they suggest; the Government and the janjaweed are on the same team.

How do we know that the Government is lying about its role and the scale of the crisis? Numerous press reports, victim accounts, and other evidence paints a tragic picture. The numbers are shocking: at least 1.1 million people driven from their homes and up to 30,000 already dead. And 320,000--I repeat, 320,000--people may die by the end of this year, and a death toll far higher is easily within reach.

But numbers do not tell the whole story. The National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency has produced a number of satellite images that depict what is going on in the Sudan.

This map I have in the chamber of western Sudan and eastern Chad shows the large number of damaged and destroyed villages across the Darfur region. Each orange fire with a black center, as shown on the map, represents a village that has been completely destroyed--each one of these areas shown in orange with the black in it.

At least 400 separate villages, most of which were stable black- African farming communities, have been partly or completely burned by military forces. This number reflects only those villages where there was a clear intent to damage or destroy these villages. The total number of damaged and destroyed villages could be considerably higher.

Also, on this map, you will see pink triangles that represent U.N. refugee camps inside Chad.

Now, this is very widespread. Remember, this country of Sudan is very large, about the size of the State of Texas.

Where have the people living in these villages gone?

The pink triangles on this map show U.N. refugee camps located 50 kilometers inside the Chad border. Yet

some are still unsafe because the militias are launching cross-border attacks. Those who are not in camps have settled in dry riverbeds, and the rainy season is approaching. These people will soon be unreachable.

The next picture shows the village of Karraro, a farming community destroyed within the past few months. The village consisted of approximately 250 huts. By May, they were all gone. This image shows healthy vegetation in red. There is very little left, and this was a farming village. The blues and grays show areas that have been destroyed.

It is remarkable.

This slide shows El Geneina, the capital of Western Darfur State. The town is under the control of the Sudanese Government--I repeat, is under the control of the Sudanese Government--and has not been attacked by militia forces.

In the upper right-hand corner of the slide, you can see a government airfield, one of three in the Darfur region. Sitting on the ground are M-24 HIND attack helicopters, as shown right here. According to eyewitness accounts, the Government has used these attack helicopters to target the civilian population. It is not a matter of counterinsurgency techniques; the Government is deliberately attacking civilians and their villages.

The Government of Sudan may argue that the ethnic cleansing is being carried out only by militias over whom the Government has no control. But look at this image: These white arrows, right here, point to craters which the imagery analysts conclude are consistent with aerial bombing.

This is the Forchana Rufugee Camp. As I mentioned earlier, there are upwards of one million internally displaced persons in Darfur today. In addition, over 100,000 Sudanese have sought refuge in camps inside eastern Chad. The U.N. has erected eight camps in Chad, and they continue to grow. This image shows the Forchana refugee camp in Chad and they continue to grow. Since this image was acquired in mid-April, this camp has increased to over 10,000 residents. Many residents fled when their homes and crops were burned. You can see approximately 1,700 tents, and it had a population of 7,000 on 19 April and is now well over 10,000.

These satellite images together paint an appalling picture--a picture of ethnic cleansing of the worst sort, of mass killing and untold human suffering. To bring this picture into even sharper relief, I would like to share some photos taken on the ground.

I would like to thank Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times for his permission to reprint and use the following four slides.

This photo is of a 19-year old named Hussein. Hussein was in a group of men attacked by the janjaweed, and he suffered gunshot wounds to the neck and mouth. In this image you can see the scarring on his face--he still cannot eat solid food. His brother, who was also shot in the attack, discovered Hussein still alive when he returned to the village to bury the dead.

This second photo shows a shelter set up under a tree along the Chad border. The woman who lives here lost her husband and sons when they were murdered by the janjaweed. As the region enters the rainy season, many of the refugees are forced to live like this, without adequate protection from the flooding and storms.

It is hard to adequately express my disgust at this photograph. This 35-year-old woman is pregnant with the baby of one of the 20 janjaweed raiders who murdered her husband and then gang-raped her. Now she lives in Bamina, a remote border village where aid agencies have been unable to provide any help.

The current situation in Darfur is orphaning many children. This photo shows two children whose parents, uncle and older brother are all dead or missing. The girl, Nijah, is 4 years old, and she is carrying her malnourished 1-year-old brother. Many orphans, such as these two, are alone and face starvation.

I could go on, but I think the picture is clear. The world cannot let the situation in Darfur continue. The international community is getting the message, and the administration has taken some needed steps. But we must do more, and we must do it immediately.

The United Nations Security Council should issue a demand to the Sudanese government: stop immediately all violence against civilians, disarm and disband its militias, allow full humanitarian access, and let displaced persons return home. The test of the government's commitment must be what happens on the ground. If we do not see tangible evidence that the government and militias are meeting these demands, the leadership of both should face targeted multilateral sanctions and visa bans.

Peacekeeping troops should deploy to Darfur to protect civilians and expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid, and we should encourage African, European, and Arab countries to contribute to these forces. The African Union has announced that it will send 300 peacekeepers, but this is just a start. The United States should help provide financial and logistical support to countries willing to provide peacekeeping forces. We should also initiate our own targeted sanctions against both the janjaweed and government leaders, and consider other ways to pressure the government.

Some Americans, understandably preoccupied with events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, may think that these steps are too difficult or too expensive. Dealing with ethnic strife is never easy, and it is tempting to turn our heads. In a recent Washington Post op-ed by Senator DeWine and myself, we quoted a survivor of the Rwandan genocide named Dancilla. She said, ``If people forget what happened when the U.N. left us, they will not learn. It might then happen again--maybe to someone else.'' All Americans should realize one terrible fact: It is happening again.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank Senator DeWine for his involvement in this effort and his commitment to trying to see some rapid addressing of an unfolding tragedy.

My question to Senator DeWine is, Did you happen to see that the Secretary General of the United Nations travels to Darfur and is scheduled to go to what they call a squatters camp, which is where displaced persons are, understanding from news reports that there is kind of a show camp where the Sudanese Government takes their regular visitors to cycle through. The staff of the Secretary General of the U.N. visited this camp. It is in deplorable condition the day before. The Secretary General of the United Nations shows up the next day, and it is empty. The Sudanese Government has evacuated every living soul. I can't recall anything quite as insulting to the Secretary General of the United Nations.

I wonder if Senator DeWine had a comment on that.

Mr. President, late last night, after several weeks of floor debate, the Senate completed action on the Defense Authorization Act. Both that legislation and the pending measure, S. 2559, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, will enable us to make great strides towards providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment, benefits, and programs they need to carry out their critical missions. I would like to applaud the efforts of both committees to ensure that these brave men and women are provided for.

Even though it passed just last night, the Appropriations Committee worked to provide funding levels that are generally commensurate with the authorization bill. This is very important, and it will enable us to continue to meet our obligations to support service members in the fight against terror. The bill includes many critical funding provisions to which I lend strong support, such as the funding to increase Army end strength by 20,000 soldiers.

Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, the bill also includes a large number of unauthorized and unrequested provisions. I hope that the sponsors will carefully reconsider these damaging provisions as the bill works its way through the legislative process. While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the members of the Committee, we must all be alarmed at these appropriations earmarks. They limit the ability of our Defense Department to expend needed resources according to its funding priorities.

With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, and with looming budget deficits at home, the Senate faces some tough choices. We must find a way to maintain our fiscal responsibility while fully providing for our military needs. The costs that go along with the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand now, more than ever, a new fiscal sanity in approaching our appropriations bills. A half-a- trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending that consumes an ever growing proportion of our Federal budget. While the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these earmarks significantly burden American taxpayers.

Not surprisingly, along with the growth in deficit spending over the past few years, there also has been a significant growth in earmarks and pork barrel spending. In fact, according to information compiled by the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in Fiscal Year 1994 to 14,040 in FY 2004. That's an increase of 240 percent in 10 years. In dollar terms, the earmarking has risen from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period.

Mr. President, based on the calculations of my office, the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act contained $3.7 billion in pork. The conference report to the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act contained $8.1 billion in pork, while the Senate version included $5.2 billion. The Fiscal Year 2004 Senate-passed Defense Appropriations Act contained well over $4 billion of pork. This year $6.9 billion was added in the bill and the report, a number which is much greater than last year's Senate version of the legislation. This is real money. Every year, countless important military and domestic programs go unfunded or underfunded. I find it hard to understand why we find the money to pay for member add ons, but then have to battle to fund important programs such as AmeriCorps.

Projects that appear on the Defense Appropriations Member Add-ons List are items that are requested by Senators but were not included in the President's budget request. They did not appear on the Joint Chiefs' Unfunded Priority List, and they were not authorized in the Defense Authorization bill. These criteria have been useful in ferreting out programs of questionable merit, and in determining the relative priority of projects requested by members for strictly parochial reasons, often at the expense of the readiness of our armed forces. But, the fact remains that throughout the years in which I have been identifying these add-ons, no offsets have been provided for any project. In a time when some of our soldiers and sailors still receive food stamps, or live in inadequate housing, we somehow found a way to provide over $4 billion in unnecessary spending to the Defense Appropriations bill. For example, the Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what was provided for in the President's Budget Request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2005. We should provide additional funding for defense for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need, not for programs that are important because of the state that they come from or because of the seniority of the Member of Congress.

Mr. President, this is an election year and, once again, the members of the Appropriations Committee are touting their earmarks on their websites and in their press releases. One committee member listed $102.6 million in earmarks spread over 16 different projects, while another member lauds funding for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. What is missing from these releases is the story about the authorized programs that will not receive full funding because there is not enough money to go around. Wouldn't it be more responsible to spend this money on pay raises or other important morale boosters instead of on parochial interests?

Earlier this week, I spoke at length on the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease Program so I will not take up much more of the Senate's time again now, except to say, that the amendment that was passed by the Senate in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 is critical because Congressional guidance is needed. The Air Force's conduct on its Tanker Lease Program has, to date, been unacceptable. With regards to the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease Program, the Department of Defense and the Air Force leadership have obfuscated, delayed, and withheld information from Congress and the taxpayers.

Equally as unacceptable, the Appropriations Committee added $110 million in this report in--a table, under the heading ``Tanker Replacement, Advance Procurement.'' There was no money for the tanker program in the President's defense budget submitted to Congress in February. The Senate Armed Services Committee did not authorize any funding for tanker recapitalization for fiscal year 2005. The Chief Staff of the Air Force, General John P. Jumper, USAF, did not request advance procurement for tanker replacement in his ``Fiscal Year 2005 Unfunded Priority List,'' which he submitted to Congress in March 2005. The reason is simple--tanker replacement money is not needed NOW.

This latest procurement earmark is disturbingly similar to the $30 billion line item included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act which gave rise to this entire controversy to begin with. The Air Force's proposal to acquire 100 Boeing KC-767A tankers was flawed from the beginning. Everything, including a complete investigation of possible Air Force misconduct, should be done to assure that this doesn't happen again.

Aspects of that deal, ranging from how the original proposal passed through Congress to the improper conduct of senior executives at the Boeing Company, have been exhaustively reviewed and fundamentally criticized by the Senate Committee on Armed Services; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; the Department of Justice; the Defense Department's Office of the Inspector General; the Defense Science Board; the Congressional Budget Office; the General Accounting Office; the Congressional Research Service; the Office of Management and Budget; the Defense Department's Office of Programs, Analysis and Evaluation; the Institute for Defense Analyses; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University and others. Notably, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and former Defense Department Comptroller General Dov Zakheim have also weighed in with serious concerns about various aspects of the tanker program.

Critically, the Defense Science Board task force found ``there is no compelling material or financial reason to initiate a replacement program prior to the completion of the Analysis of Alternatives, AoA, and the Mobility Capabilities Study, MCS.'' Moreover, the task force observed that the Air Force overstated both the amount of corrosion throughout the KC-135 fleet and the KC-135's operation and support cost growth. It also found that the KC-135E can fly to 2040. In other words, the `dominating rationale' cited by the Air Force to Congress for having taxpayers pay billions of dollars more for leasing Boeing's KC- 767A tankers than they would for buying them outright, has been conclusively shown to be without merit. The Air Force's representations on this issue remains a matter of continuing investigative concern. The likelihood that the analysis of alternatives, AOA, and mobility capabilities study, MCS, if done properly, will recommend an acquisition method for these tankers now known to be wholly unsuitable here, is probably minimal. So, the Secretary's decision appears fatal to at least the lease component of the proposal.

Now what matters is that the AOA and MCS are conducted properly and objectively, and a new validated capabilities document, ORD, is completed that reflects, for the first time, the requirements of the warfighter. The Air Force's conduct to date in this matter has been egregious. The participation of the Air Force's FFRDC in the AOA is problematic. RAND has recently been receiving as much as $50 million per year from the Air Force and apparently prejudged the AOA in a recent report. Therefore, both should be disqualified from the process. The process going forward will remain an issue of continuing interest to me.

The bottom line here is this. The amendment adopted in the Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act will do much to inject needed sunlight on a program whose development has been largely insulated from public scrutiny. The tanker amendment attempts to make sure that any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly. We should expect no less from the Air Force.

Some of the egregious examples of Defense pork for FY 2005, either in the bill or in the accompanying report, include:

Section 8063 of the General Provisions. The text states that, ``each contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal year for construction or service performed in whole or in part in a State which is not contiguous with another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the national average rate of unemployment as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous with another State, individuals who are residents of such State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills.'' I am not making this text up. Let's call a spade a spade. This provision directly protects the jobs of only Hawaiians and Alaskans.

As previously mentioned, $1.8 million, for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills of Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher deficits.

$120 million for the Advanced Procurement of F-15s. The Air Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15. Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both.

$1 million for the Center for Political Logic Devices. I am the first one who would pay for logic if we could insert some into our political process, but this earmark won't do it.

$11 million for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless System. Chameleons change colors, but one thing does not change is the unrequested provisions in this bill.

$2 million for the Air Battle Captain program at the University of North Dakota. This provision sends students from West Point to North Dakota for their flight lessons. Instead of letting flight schools compete for the ability to train these cadets, we have earmarked their training to North Dakota. We are putting parochial interests over the necessity to provide the best training possible for the best price to our Army cadets.

$6 million for the LISA inspector. Who is this Lisa, and why does it cost $6 million to inspect her?

$4 million dollars for Project Albert. Hey Hey Hey. Seems like Albert could get pretty fat off all the pork in this bill.

$4 million for Hibernation Genomics. Looking around the Senate, I see a few tired people, so maybe we a little hibernation is in order. But I'd prefer not to pay $4 million for it.

$5.5 million for the C-135 Improved Waste Removal System. We need to improve the way we remove waste from this bill.

$700,000 for the United States Army Reserve Citizen Soldier Memorial Park.

Mr. President, I use humor in describing these earmarks, but the damage they do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate funding priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of the same earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I come to the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the appropriators' perennial favorite projects include:

$5 million for the Smart Truck. This provision, which directly lines the pockets of the auto industry in Detroit, is not exactly smart.

$10 million for the 21st Century Truck. This program has been around for years and not once has the Department of Defense requested funding for it. While I'm sure we all would love to jump into a truck that could be in a James Bond movie, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the Department of Defense to pay for it.

$8.0 million for the New England Manufacturing Supply Chain. This is above and beyond the $14 million earmarked for them over the last two years.

$9 million for the Medical Free Electron Laser. The electrons might be free, but the laser sure isn't. This project was developed by the scientists at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. The budget justification used by the DoD in previous years spelled out the plan to have this program funded through NIH by FY2003. Why hasn't this happened yet?

$44 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Arizona is home to the Lowell Observatory. Why should we provide $44 million to Maui, when there are many observatories in the United States, such as Lowell, that offer many of the same benefits as the Maui site?

$1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the brown tree snake has slithered its way into our defense appropriation bill. I'm sure the snakes are annoying--maybe even frightening to children and adults alike, but this funding does not belong in the Defense Appropriations Act.

Mr. President, there are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy programs, such as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be on this piece of legislation. This type of critical research should be funded through the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be provided with the best equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce defense dollars should be used for these defense purposes, not others. Some examples of these inappropriate earmarks include:

$200 million for Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program.

$50 million Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program.

$25 million for Hawaii Federal Health Care Network.

$2.5 million for the Alaska Federal Health Care Network.

$5 million for Pacific Island Health Care Referral.

I could go on and on--and on and on and on--listing all of the examples of pork in this legislation. We simply need to reassess our priorities.

This year's bill also includes a number of ``Buy America'' provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and under. Another provision ensures that all carbon, alloy or steel plates are produced in the United States. Whew. I know we'll sleep better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured in the U.S. Yet another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.

Mr. President, I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. Every year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an important element in improving relations among nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners.

Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to ``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DoD, and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. In order to maintain our troop strength and force readiness, the DoD must be able to be equipped with the best technologies available, regardless of country of origin. This would ensure both price and product competition.

Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces-- increasingly necessary as we operate in coalition warfare and peacekeeping missions. These exports also increase our influence over recipient country actions, and, in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to terminate them. Exports lower the unit costs of systems to the U.S. military, and provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports--well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters. We had a floor debate on this a few days ago during consideration of the Defense Authorization Act. There is no justification for including these provisions in the Appropriations Act.

Finally, one of the more egregious ``Buy America'' provisions in this legislation is a section in which we dictate that we must buy only American seafood. While this provision has been included in a previous year's funding, I must ask: What is the compelling Department of Defense need to protect the American seafood industry? Why is an entire industry singled out for protection?

Mr. President, this bill spends money on Lewis and Clark and funnels cash to a center on ``political logic devices.'' It protects the mooring chain industry and ensures that we only buy American seafood. If there is any food that should be mentioned in this bill, Mr. President, it is that Other White Meat. There is enough pork in this bill to feed an army--if only that we used our defense appropriations to do that. I suppose it is more important to pay Project Albert.

I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate floor with every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical for American taxpayers to understand where the money in their pockets is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the trough.

Mr. President, I commend Senators McConnell and Feinstein for their efforts to renew sanctions contained in last year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

The world's democracies have a common moral obligation to promote human rights. In few places is the lack of freedom and justice more appalling than in Burma, a country in which a band of thugs, led by General Than Shwe, controls the population through violence and terror. The Burmese regime has a record of unchecked repression. It has murdered political opponents, used child soldiers and forced labor, and employed rape as a weapon of war. Last year, the Burmese military junta launched an orchestrated, violent attack against democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and hundreds of her supporters. Since then, the regime has kept more than 1,000 political activists imprisoned, including elected members of parliament.

Aung San Suu Kyi remains a captive. Because she stands for democracy, this heroic woman has endured attacks, arrest, captivity, and untold sufferings at the hands of the regime. The junta fears Aung San Suu Kyi because of what she represents--peace, freedom, and justice for all Burmese people. The thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle her voice, but they will never extinguish her moral courage. Her leadership and example shines brightly for the millions of Burmese who hunger for freedom, and for those of us outside Burma who seek justice for its people. She recently celebrated her 50th birthday, under house arrest.

Last month, the National League for Democracy courageously boycotted the junta's so-called ``National Convention.'' The government portrayed this sham convention as the first step in a ``roadmap to democracy,'' but it is clear that it is intended to blunt international pressure, rather than as a serious step in a democratic process. No ``roadmap to democracy'' will have any credibility so long as Aung Suu Kyi remains in confinement.

The work of Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of the National League for Democracy must be the world's work. We must continue to press the junta until it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to democratic rule. The Burmese people deserve no less.

In recognition of this, last year the Congress overwhelmingly passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In doing so, we took active steps to pressure the military junta, and we sent a signal to the Burmese people that they are not forgotten--that the American people care about their freedom and will stand up for justice in their country.

For this reason I stand in support of the joint resolution that will renew the import restrictions contained in last year's legislation-- sanctions that are supported by the National League for Democracy. These restrictions must remain until Burma embarks on a true path of reconciliation--a process that must include the NLD and Burmese ethnic minorities. I note, however, that while the American people have spoken with one voice in support of freedom in Burma, it is past time that the leaders of other nations do the same. No other country has yet implemented U.S.-style economic sanctions. The Europeans should reject half measures and join the United States in targeted sanctions against the military regime. China, Thailand, India, and other Asian nations uncomfortable with a tougher response to the junta's crimes must understand that diplomatic obfuscation and obstruction on Burma will profoundly affect their broader bilateral relationship with the western democracies.

The picture today in Burma is tragically clear. So long as a band of thugs rules Burma, its people will never be free. They will remain mired in poverty and suffering, cut off from the world, with only their indomitable spirit to keep them moving forward. With our action today, we will support this spirit.

Mr. President, why is this amendment needed? Congressional guidance is needed where the Air Force's conduct on its Tanker Lease Program has, to date, been unacceptable.

First, the Air Force has provided Congress inaccurate information in an attempt to justify its original proposal to lease 100 Boeing KC- 767As. For example, Air Force Secretary Jim Roche has repeatedly advised Congress that, in the existing KC-135 fleet, ``corrosion is significant, pervasive, and represents an unacceptable risk.'' Secretary Roche has also emphasized to Congress increased operating costs in the current fleet as a basis for entering into the tanker lease. Air Force leadership has indicated that these elements create an ``urgent'' need to recapitalize the fleet. However, a Defense Science Board, DSB, task force found that the Air Force's claims of unmanageable corrosion problems and cost growth were overstated.

Remarkably, the task force recommended that corrosion not be cited as a justification for tanker recapitalization. As such, the task force concluded that ``[t]here is no compelling material or financial reason to initiate a replacement program prior to the completion of the [Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)] and the [Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS)].'' Thus, the task force jettisoned the ``dominant reason'' Secretary Roche first cited in his July 10, 2003, report to Congress as the basis for having taxpayers pay billions of dollars more for leasing tankers than they would for buying them. The Air Force's representations on this issue remains a matter of continuing investigative concern.

In another example, to comply with the original authorizing statute, the Air Force misrepresented to Congress that its proposal to lease 100 Boeing KC-767 tankers was merely an operating lease. This would have obviated the requirement that the White House obtain advance budget authority for the whole lease proposal. But, the DOD-Office of the Inspector General, OIG, and Program Analysis and Evaluation, PA&E, as well as the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and the General Accounting Office, GAO, found that the procurement of these tankers is, in fact, a lease-purchase. In addition, facts surrounding the original lease proposal made it clear that the transaction was a lease-purchase: under the original proposal, the Air Force conceded that the DOD is ``committed to earmark[ing] an additional $2B in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 for the purchase of aircraft covered by the multiyear program under the terms of the proposed contract'' to head off a funding spike over the Future-Years Defense Program.

Second, the DOD-OIG and the National Defense University, NDU, concluded that the Air Force's commercial item procurement strategy ``prevented any visibility into Boeing's costs and required the Air Force to use a fixed-price type contract . . . The strategy also exempted [Boeing] from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data. The strategy places the Department at high risk for paying excessive prices and precludes good fiduciary responsibility for DOD funds.'' The NDU similarly concluded that ``[i]n a sole source, monopoly commercial environment, the government is not served well with limited price data'' and suggested that the Air Force neglected its fiduciary/ stewardship responsibilities.

Third, the DOD-OIG and the NDU also concluded that the operational requirements document, ORD, for tankers was not tailored, as it should have been, to the requirements of the warfighter, but rather to closely correlate to the Boeing KC-767A. The DOD-OIG found that senior Air Force staff directed that the ORD closely correlate to the Boeing KC- 767A that was being developed for a foreign government, in anticipation of the authorizing legislation. This is particularly troubling where, according to an internal Boeing document regarding the ORD, Boeing planned to ``[e]stablish clearly defined requirements in ORD for the USAF Tanker configuration that results in an affordable solution that meets the USAF mission needs and will prevent an AOA from being conducted.'' Under the current proposal, the first 100 tankers produced will not be capable of, among other things, interoperability with Navy, Marine, or coalition assets, or simultaneously refueling more than one receiver aircraft. Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald recently suggested that in theater, such a limitation restricts the Navy's long-range striking capability and fosters a needlessly risky aerial refueling environment.

Finally, documents suggest that the Air Force allowed Boeing to modify the requirements in the ORD while it was being developed. Documents also reflect that the Air Force induced the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, JROC, into approving and validating the corrupted ORD by falsely representing that it was not tailored to a specific aircraft. This is of continuing investigative interest to the Committee.

As I've described, the history of the Air Force's attempt to recapitalize its tanker fleet has been riddled with corporate scandal, public corruption and political controversy.

This amendment attempts to make sure that any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly. The amendment achieves this by doing six things.

First, the amendment seeks to have the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Air Force Secretary not acquire any aerial refueling aircraft for the Air Force, by lease or contract, either with full or open competition, until at least 60 days after the Secretary of Defense has reviewed all documentation for the acquisition, including the completed AoA, the completed aerial refueling portion of the MCS, a new, validated capabilities document and the approval of a Defense Acquisition Board. And until the Secretary of Defense has submitted to the congressional defense committees a written determination that the acquisition is in compliance with all currently applicable laws and regulations.

Among the authorities with which the acquisition decision must comply is OMB Circular A-11, revised for 2003. In other words, without substantial private-party participation, any third-party financing arrangement, particularly those structured around a ``special purpose entity,'' will be deemed to be a transaction of the government. So, under OMB Circular A-11, the transaction must be reflected in the President's budget the year that obligations arising from it are incurred. The DOD-OIG, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, and others have concluded that the proposed lease of tankers is a lease-purchase--for which renegotiation of the current contract or independent authorization may be required. Therefore, under OMB Circular A-11, budget authority would be needed for the entire obligation in the first year of the lease term.

Second, not less than 45 days after the Secretary of Defense submits this

determination, the Comptroller General and the DOD-OIG shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on whether the acquisition complies with all currently applicable laws and regulations, as well as the requirements of the amendment itself, and is consistent with the AoA and the other documentation referred to in this amendment.

Third, the acquisition by lease or contract of any aerial refueling aircraft for the Air Force beyond low-rate initial production shall be subject to (and the Secretary of Defense will comply with) the requirements of sections 2366 and 2399 of title 10, United States Code.

Fourth, before selecting the provider of integrated support for the tanker fleet, the Secretary of Defense shall perform all analysis required by law of the costs and benefits of the alternative of using Federal Government personnel and contractor personnel to provide such support. The amendment also requires the Secretary to conduct all analysis required by law of the core logistics requirements, the use of performance-based logistics and the length of the contract period. The Secretary of Defense shall then select the provider on the basis of fair, full and open competition as defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act.

Fifth, before the Secretary of Defense commits to any acquisition of aerial refueling aircraft, the Secretary shall require the manufacturer to provide, with respect to commercial items covered by the lease or contract, information on the prices at which the same or similar items have been sold that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price for those, and other commercial, items.

Finally, the Secretary of the Air Force shall contact the DOD-OIG for the review and approval of any Air Force use of non-Federal audit services for any acquisition of aerial refueling aircraft.

A few notes about the amendment.

First, this amendment opens the process to oversight by getting the DOD-OIG, the DOD-Comptroller General, and the Defense Acquisition Board, DAB, actively involved in the process. Indeed, everyone who has independently looked into how the original proposal went through had major problems with the lack of transparency. For example, DAB was completely cut out of the process. As the NDU noted, if allowed to participate, the DAB would have exercised responsibility over the selection of a preferred system alternative, acceptance of the overall acquisition strategy, and compliance with applicable policies and statutes. This amendment deals the DAB back in the process to discharge its vital function in providing comprehensive senior management review.

As another example, under this amendment, the DOD-OIG will determine, among other things, whether the data provided by the aircraft and engine manufacturer is sufficient to determine the reasonableness of the price of those items. Coupled with the amendment's requirement that the DOD-OIG approve the Air Force's use of an outside auditor, the taxpayers' interests will be protected. Furthermore, I believe that the DOD-OIG's, the NDU's, and Institute for Defense Analyses' recommendations that the Air Force Secretary negotiate the price of the engines for the tankers with the engine manufacturers need to be implemented.

The bottom line here is this. The amendment does much to inject much needed sunlight in a program whose development has been largely insulated from public scrutiny. In so doing, the amendment allows us to discharge our oversight obligations the next time around on this multi- billion dollar procurement proposal, responsibly and effectively.

Second, the amendment gives the Secretary of Defense sufficient flexibility to pursue a lease only after, among other things, an AoA is completed. The Secretary has already committed to not going forward on replacing the current fleet until an AoA (and a MCS) are completed. While giving the Secretary appropriate flexibility, the amendment requires that the Air Force go through certain hoops to make sure that any acquisition of tankers in the future, is done the right way. These hoops were loosely drawn from the recommendations of the DOD-OIG, the DSB, and the NDU, whose input the Secretary specifically asked for. I will have printed a list of findings, conclusions, and recommendations by each at the end of this statement. They must all be fully considered before any decision to recapitalize the tanker fleet is made.

Third, it generally requires the DOD and the Air Force to do nothing more than comply with currently applicable statutes, regulations and OMB Circulars. Those who looked into the Air Force's conduct regarding the original proposal agreed that the Air Force did not comply extant statutory requirements. This amendment forces the Air Force to do that.

I ask unanimous consent that the list to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I strongly support the passage of S. 2400, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This legislation funds $422.2 billion for defense programs, which is a 3.4 percent increase or $20.9 billion above the amount approved by Congress last year. I commend the bill managers, Senators Warner and Levin, for their leadership both in the Committee and on the floor these past weeks. This is a very important bill, and I am pleased we are about to proceed to final passage.

Yesterday, I had a lengthy statement on the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease Program so I will not take up more of the Senate's time now, except to say that the amendment that was included in this bill is critical because congressional guidance is needed where the Air force's conduct on its Tanker Lease Program has, to date, been unacceptable. With regard to the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease Program, the Department of Defense and the Air Force leadership have obfuscated, delayed, and withheld information from Congress and the taxpayers. Therefore, the tanker amendment attempts to make sure that any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly. We should expect no less from the Air Force.

The adopted amendment does much to inject needed sunlight on a program whose development has been largely insulated from public scrutiny. It will allow us to discharge responsibly and effectively our oversight obligations the next time around on this multi-billion dollar procurement proposal.

The men and women of our nation's Armed Forces put their lives on the line every day to protect the very freedoms we as Americans hold dear. It is our obligation to provide key quality of life benefits to the members of our military. Great strides will be made by this bill towards accomplishing that goal. For example, this bill authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. It also repeals the requirement for military members to pay subsistence charges while hospitalized, and adds $7.8 million for expanded care and services at the Walter Reed Amputee Patient Care Center. Also included in the legislation is a permanent increase in the rate of family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250 per month as well as a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger from $150 per month to $225 per month.

We continue to be increasingly reliant on the men and women of our Reserve forces and National Guard. In fact, 40 percent of all the ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are composed of National Guard and Reserve forces as well as nearly all of the ground forces in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai. Many of these soldiers and sailors leave behind friends, families, and careers to defend our Nation. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of policy makers to ensure that we look after the needs of these patriots. Included in the legislation is the authorization for full medical and dental examinations and requisite inoculations when reservists mobilize and demobilize as well as a new requirement for pre-separation physical examinations for members of the reserve component. This provision is critical to maintain, and in some circumstances, will help to increase the readiness of the Total Force.

The Senate also adopted an important amendment to authorize an increase in the size of our Army by 20,000. This increase is absolutely vital in our Army's ability to carry out its mission in the Global War on Terror. There is no shortage of evidence supporting an increase in Army end strength. Recently, the Army pulled 3,600 troops out of South Korea to fill critical needs in Iraq. The Army is also looking to deploy to Iraq the 11th Armored Calvary Regiment. This is an elite unit that serves in desert training exercises. In addition, for the first time in over 10 years, the Army is pulling people out of the Individual Ready Reserve to fill critical needs. The Department of Defense should be able to move troops around as needed to address critical needs, however, in this instance, we are sacrificing our readiness on the Korean

peninsula because we do not have enough soldiers serving in the Army.

After returning home for a short period of time, soldiers and Marines are already making preparations for their second tour in Iraq or Afghanistan in as many years. This is not good for morale, this is not good for retention, this is not good for readiness, and this is not good for the soldier's families. Eventually, recruitment will be seriously affected by these trends.

Additionally, the Army recently announced a new stop-loss policy. While I certainly recognize the Army's authority and necessity to issue stop loss orders, their issuance in this instance is yet another reason why we need to increase the size of the Army. For all the benefits in group cohesion that results from extended tours, the Army will be facing a serious crisis when it comes time for these soldiers to reenlist on their own accord. I am concerned about the effect that these stop-loss orders will have on the morale of our Army. While I still do not believe that we need a draft, we do need to increase the size of the Army to carry out important defense missions.

These are some aspects of this legislation that I do not support. For example, once again, this bill lent the opportunity for protectionist Buy America amendments. In a similar fashion as last year, the Senate had to beat back an amendment that sought to protect parochial interests at the cost of our defense industry and American jobs. It seems as if every year, we fight the same fight on the Senate floor.

A sound policy which the Senate has adopted in the past is that we need to provide American servicemen and women with the best equipment at the best price for the American taxpayer. This is the policy we need to continue to follow.

The international considerations of this amendment are immense. such an isolationist, go-it-alone approach would have serious consequences on our relationship with our allies. Furthermore, our country is threatened when we ignore our trade agreements. Currently, the U.S. enjoys a trade balance in defense exports of 6-to-1 in its favor with respect to Europe, and about 12-to-1 with respect to the rest of the world. We don't need protectionist measures to insulate our defense or aerospace industries. If we stumble down the road of protectionist policies, our allies will retaliate and the ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO allies would be seriously undercut. Critical international programs, such as the Joint Strike Fighter and missile defense, would likely be terminated as our allies reassess our defense cooperative trading relationship.

On another important policy consideration, the Senate also successfully defeated an amendment aimed at canceling the upcoming BRAC round. BRAC has taken on a new significance in the War against Terror. Never has there been a time in recent memory when it has been more important not to waste money on non-essential expenditures. To continue to sustain an infrastructure that exceeds our strategic and tactical needs will make less funding available to the forces that we are relying on to destroy the international network of terrorism.

The Department of Defense has come out with very fair and reasonable criteria used to select what bases are chosen for BRAC. I have every confidence the Secretary of Defense will carry out this round of BRAC in a just and consistent manner. Sooner or later, surplus bases must be closed. Delaying or canceling BRAC would only make the process more difficult and painful than need be. The sooner the issue is addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go toward defense modernization and better pay and benefits for our hard-working service members.

I understand some of my colleagues may be concerned about the potential negative effects a base closure may have on their local economy. Previous base closure rounds have had many success stories. For example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria, LA, benefited from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S., about 60,000 new jobs have been created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than 2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced. This is not to say that base closures are easy for any community, but it does suggest that communities can and will continue to thrive.

Americans are blessed with nearly limitless freedoms and liberties. In exchange for all our country gives to us, it does not demand much in return. Yet throughout our history, millions of people have volunteered to give back to their nation through military service. The selfless acts of courage and sacrifice made by the men and women in our armed services have elevated our Nation to the greatness we enjoy today.

America is defined not by its power but by its ideals. One of the great strengths of the American public is the desire to serve a cause greater than our own self interest. All too often, our younger generations are accused of selfishness and an unwillingness to sacrifice. I disagree. I see generations of people yearning to serve and help their fellow citizens. Each year, thousands of our young Americans decide to dedicate a few years or even a full career to protecting the rights and liberties of others. They often do this with very real risks to their lives. They volunteer to do this not for profit, nor for self-promotion, but out of a sense of duty, service, and patriotism.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

No longer than 10 or 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed 15 minutes for my substitute, the Senator from Minnesota be given 10 minutes in response, and the Senator from Virginia, 3 minutes, followed by a rollcall vote.

Yesterday, Senator Warner called up a substitute amendment. I ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment be called up for its immediate consideration.

My reasons for offering this substitute amendment are simple. It will be very harmful if we allow the Dayton amendment to be adopted in its original form. It is harmful to the Department of Defense, our soldiers in uniform, our domestic defense industry, and, not least, the American taxpayer.

The amendment I am offering in the form of a substitute would grant waiver authority for the application of a domestic source or content requirement with a country that has signed a declaration of principles with the United States. This substitute amendment aims to assure that the Department of Defense, charged with protecting our national security, is not limited in its ability to carry out the functions the American public is depending on it to do.

The Dayton amendment would give preferential treatment to U.S. suppliers and does not accomplish the more important objective, which is to provide our troops with the best product for the best price. It may not sound like much on first consideration, but it would have far- reaching consequences on national security efforts and violate many of our trade agreements with respect to defense procurement.

Despite the good intentions of the proponents of the ``Buy America'' amendment, if it passed in its current form, it could have consequences to our Nation, impacting jobs and our economic prosperity. Further, it would harm our relationships with our allies and coalition partners and our collective prosecution of the war on terror.

As for the international considerations of the Dayton amendment, it is isolationist and go-it-alone. Currently, the United States enjoys a trade balance in defense exports of 6 to 1 in favor with respect to Europe, and 12 to 1 with respect to the rest of the world. I don't think there is any doubt if we restricted what we would buy from other nations, they would then, in return, respond. If we pass the Dayton amendment without modifications, our allies will retaliate, and the ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO allies would be seriously undercut. Critical international programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter Program and the Missile Defense Program would likely be terminated as our allies reassess our defense cooperation.

There are many examples of a trade imbalance that I can point to. I mention one government: The Dutch Government, over a 4-year period, purchased $2.5 billion in defense equipment from U.S. manufacturers, including air refueling planes, Chinook helicopters, Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter equipment, missiles, combat radios, and various equipment. During that same period, the United States purchased only $40 million of defense equipment from the Dutch. So there is a $2.5 billion procurement by the Dutch Government for American equipment and $40 million of equipment of the United States bought by the Dutch. Recently, the Defense Ministers of the United Kingdom and Sweden pointed to similar situations in their country.

In every meeting regarding this subject I am told how difficult it is to buy American defense products because of our protectionist policies and the strong ``Buy European'' sentiment overseas. The Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Denmark, allies that provided forces in

Iraq, recently sent letters to the Armed Services Committee expressing their strong support for the underlying title 8 in the Defense Authorization Act.

The letters support the Commission on the Future of the National Technology and Industrial Base, the conforming standard for waiver of domestic source or content requirements, and consistency with U.S. trade obligations under trade agreements.

Over the last few years we have sold 18 variants of aircraft, 19 types of missiles, as well as ground and naval equipment, through the Foreign Military Sales Program. These defense systems were manufactured in 39 States across America. Companies such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Bell, Northrop Grumman, Missile Research Corporation, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney, General Dynamics, American General, and American Truck Corporation are contributing to the trade surplus we have in the defense technology market.

I want to point out also that in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 there was $482 million worth of military equipment purchased in the State of Minnesota; $482 million, Lockheed Martin; and Raytheon, 20 Stinger missiles. Lockheed Martin, by the way, sold those weapons systems to Japan, and Raytheon, the Stinger, to Turkey.

I will read from a couple letters we have received from various countries and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others on this issue.

There is no one under more assault than the British Prime Minister for his continued unwavering support of our effort in Iraq. The British Ambassador wrote:

If approved, the measures proposed under Title VII would be

an important step forward towards improving interoperability

across the full range of our mutual defence cooperation.

The Netherlands Ambassador says:

Although not directly related to the above referenced

proposals, allow me to share with you the idea that in our

perception, part of the discussion which is seen by some as

the danger posed by foreign dependency can be satisfied by

bilateral Security of Supply agreements which can be

negotiated as more detailed arrangements under a Declaration

of Principles. . . .

As you know, Mr. President, we have Canadian troops fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.

The amendment offered by Senator Dayton sends the wrong

message to U.S. allies by deleting language in the

Committee's bill that would encourage and support

international defense cooperation and ultimately benefit U.S.

taxpayers and American troops.

Every nation that is working with us and fighting alongside the United States is deeply concerned about this issue. It is hard for me to understand why we would want to propose legislation which would put this impediment to our relationship with our allies right now, when we are desperately seeking more cooperation and more effort on behalf of freedom.

The Danish Ambassador says:

. . . it would be very difficult to understand and explain

if Denmark were to face new restrictions in the industrial

cooperation with the U.S. Especially in light of our

participation in Iraq since the beginning of the military

operations and the continued presence of 500 Danish troops--

one of the largest contingents in both absolute numbers and

certainly in proportion of population.

We are in tough times right now. The last thing we need to do is throw sand in the face of our allies, particularly our European allies who are fighting alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other parts of the world. I would hope that the substitute would be agreed to, and I would point out again the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association, the Secretary of Defense, and others have spoken strongly on this issue.

Let me quote from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter:

On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's

largest federation, representing more than 3 million

businesses, I am writing to express serious concerns for two

Buy American-related amendments for consideration during

Senate debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

These sections represent important steps in Department of

Defense transformation plans as it is filed.

So I would hope we would also understand the Senate needs to go into these negotiations with a strong position, given the position of the House Armed Services Committee authorization. So I hope we will adopt the amendment. I ask for its enactment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Reed amendment. Yesterday, in USA Today: ``Army division sees its war tour extended and its casualties rise,'' a very interesting front-page story in USA Today, entitled: ``13 months on the ground in Iraq.'' It says: ``After more than a year of combat, soldiers of the 1st Armored Division wonder when they'll go home.''

There are some interesting comments in this article from individuals:

``The option left to the nation, the Army, was to keep 1st

Armored here or pretty much concede defeat,'' says Lt. Col.

T.C. Williams, the battalion commander. Soldiers were

disappointed, he says, but they also knew that after a year

in Iraq, they were prepared for anything. ``Nobody does this

better than we do,'' he says.

I am sure he is correct.

There are other quotes:

``We still have a mission we have to accomplish, for the

good of the Iraqi people and the future,'' says Staff Sgt.

Brad Watson. . . .

But these soldiers don't hide their concern that their

extension has been violent, hard on their families, and left

them wondering how things could have been.

``Gosh, we could have got out of here in 12 months with

little or no casualties, and all of a sudden 17 people in

your platoon become a casualty?'' Watson says, ``It's

something I never dreamed could happen.''

The point of the story is there are some very brave young Americans who have had to remain in Iraq. There are also stories about the so- called stop-loss rule, which has been imposed, which prohibits people from leaving the military at the time when they are supposed to, which I think some could argue is some form of conscription, of a draft.

What we are doing is we are stopping men and women in the Army and in the Marine Corps from leaving the service at the time of the expiration of their contract. So we are involuntarily keeping people in the military. And instead of the draft applying to all Americans-- conscription--we are basically penalizing those people who volunteered to serve, which, in my view, is the worst of all worlds.

The reason why we are in trouble in Iraq and in as much trouble as we are in today and having the difficulties we are having today is because after the conclusion of the combat phase of the war we had too few boots on the ground in Iraq. Anyone outside of the Pentagon, with rare exception--any retired general will tell you that we did not have enough people on the ground to pacify the situation, stop the looting, stop the resurrection of the Baathists, stop the beginning of an insurgency. We had a window of opportunity to do so. We did not have enough people on the ground. And now we are paying a very heavy price for that incredible mistake on the part of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon.

And why were they so reluctant to send additional troops? The dirty little secret is, they did not have them. Do you think we are taking troops out of Korea to deploy to Iraq because the situation has gotten better in Korea? The last time I checked, the North Koreans posed an even greater threat and are acting in a more intransigent fashion than ever before. But we are having to take thousands of people out of deployment in Korea and move them to Iraq.

Meanwhile, we see people who are guardsmen and reservists who are going back and back and back. Now, I have had the opportunity of meeting and talking to many. In fact, 40 percent or 55,000 of the soldiers currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are guardsmen and reservists. They are wonderful. They are magnificent people. But they did not join the Guard

and Reserves to be deployed every other year to Afghanistan or Iraq.

When we look at the training of the soldiers who were assigned to the prison in Abu Ghraib, they were people who were involuntarily extended and had no real training in carrying out the functions they were supposed to at that prison--again, a very heavy price, a very heavy price.

Mistakes happen in conflicts. That is why we try to avoid them. But a fundamental error that is still not corrected--still not corrected--is the shortage of the military on the ground with the kinds of specialties and skills that are so badly needed: special forces, military police, linguists, civil affairs, and others who simply are not there today. And we see in some cases a chaotic situation in some parts around Baghdad and in the Sunni Triangle.

So I regret that we are here on the floor of the Senate having to force an increase in the size of the Army on the Department of Defense. As I say, literally every retired military officer I have talked to has said--and every military expert says--you do not have a large enough Army. I recently talked to one retired general who said: I have a fear of not enough people in Iraq and that we are not able to do the job.

But my far greater fear and nightmare is that we have something in Korea, something between China and Taiwan, something in our own hemisphere like significant unrest in Venezuela or a significant commitment we might have to make on the continent of Africa. We don't have the people to do it.

I hope we will support the Reed amendment. I hope the Pentagon and the civilian leadership there will come to their senses and recognize that there are not enough men and women in the military today. They are magnificent, but there are not enough of them. They are stretched too thin. They are badly overworked, and we have paid a very heavy price for these failings from the beginning of the Iraqi conflict.

I still believe we can win and must win, but long ago we should have repaired this deficiency in the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.

I yield the floor.

I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services and my friend from Connecticut for the opportunity to work with them to reauthorize this important program.

As Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, I am familiar with this program's success. This program provides grants to local fire departments using a competitive, merit-based review process. I agree with my colleagues that this program is an example of a well-run government program that should be reauthorized, and am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 2411.

I have consented to allow Senator Dodd's amendment be added to this important legislation as a placeholder. The Senate Commerce Committee intends to hold a hearing on S. 2411 on July 8, 2004, and then we expect to report the bill out of Committee by the August recess. It is my intention that this reported version of S. 2411 be used to replace the placeholder during the conference for S. 2400.

I thank Senators Dodd, Warner, and DeWine for their leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with them to pass this legislation this year.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Brownback, Hutchison, and Allen in introducing legislation to re-authorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This legislation marks the beginning of a new age of exploration, and the extension of humanity's quest for knowledge to a manned mission to Mars.

NASA is currently responsible for a number of programs that create greater knowledge about the Earth and the universe around us. As we speak today, the two robots, Spirit and Opportunity, are exploring craters on Mars in search of ancient lake beds. The Hubble telescope continues to show us new discoveries about the universe. NASA satellites also help us to develop a better scientific understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and its response to natural and human-induced changes. NASA is in the process of developing airplanes with morphing wings that will change shape during flight.

Despite all of these wondrous achievements, NASA is an agency in search of a new mission. For many Americans, the Apollo landings remain a moment of inspiration, but also a fading memory of the past. Many space enthusiasts have complained that the manned space program has been stuck in low Earth orbit and harnessed to a costly space station and aging Space Shuttle infrastructure. Just last year, we again witnessed the inherent danger in manned spaceflight, and some questioned the need for such a risky and expensive program.

To his credit, President Bush announced on the day of the Columbia tragedy that ``our journey into space will go on.'' In January, the President offered a bold new space vision and made a firm commitment to return the Space Shuttle to flight, finish construction of the International Space Station, and return astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars. This bill would authorize these activities consistent with the President's overall requested budget amounts, and set the nation firmly on a course for manned exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

However, we also have learned from the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately, NASA's recent history of managing projects, such as the X-33 and X-34, has been full of disappointment and failure. Many Members have seen the wisdom of President Reagan's adage to ``trust, but verify,'' when analyzing NASA's budget numbers. With these lessons in mind, the bill contains a number of provisions to ensure that NASA stays on track.

The bill would require the submission of a baseline technical requirements document and life cycle cost estimate, so that Congress can find out exactly what is required to implement the President's vision and begin to determine its cost. The bill also would require an industrial assessment of the private sector's ability to support manned missions to the Moon and Mars, and a commercialization plan to identify opportunities for the private sector to participate in future missions. Most importantly, the bill would require quarterly life cycle reports on major systems of the new initiative, and include cost-control measures when the cost overruns of these systems exceed 15 percent and 25 percent over the total life cycle cost of the system.

The bill also would codify many of the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). Admiral Gehman and the other board members did an admirable job in thoroughly investigating the causes of this tragic accident. The bill would establish a lessons- learned and best practices program to ensure that NASA does not repeat the mistakes of the past. In addition, the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance is given independent funding and direct line authority over the entire Space Shuttle Safety organization. An Independent Technical Engineering Authority is established within NASA with its own budgetary line to maintain technical standards, be the sole waiver-granting authority for technical standards, and perform other tasks. The bill also would ensure that the Independent Technical Engineering Authority would recertify the Space Shuttle orbiters for operation prior to any operations beyond 2010. The bill would include an assessment of NASA's culture and organization, and an action plan to fix the cultural and organizational problems that the CAIB identified as a major cause of the accident. The men and women of the Columbia gave their lives to further America's knowledge of the Earth and the stars, and we should honor their memory by ensuring that such an accident never occurs again.

In addition, the bill would address the problems concerning the Hubble Space Telescope. As my colleagues know, NASA has indicated that it cannot use the Space Shuttle for another human mission to service this national treasure. Both NASA and the National Academy of Sciences are reviewing options for using robots and other means to save the telescope. Sixty days after the National Academy releases its report, the Administrator would be directed to report to Congress on the future servicing options for Hubble and how much it will cost.

I realize that concerns have been raised regarding some of the cuts that NASA is proposing to pay for the President's exploration vision. In order to pay for this new program, we must realize that there is limited funding and that NASA funding has to be re-allocated. However, this bill should not be construed as supporting each and every proposed reduction. Instead, the bill simply would authorize the funding levels buy the major budget accounts.

Curiosity and a drive to explore have always been quintessential American traits. This has been most evident in the space program, which continues to show great advances in human knowledge. However, we are fully aware of the inherent risks and costs of space exploration, and the need to mitigate them wherever possible. Based on this knowledge, let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and look forward to working with them to ensure passage of this bill this year.