Floor Statements

I object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Is the amendment debateable?

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Indiana to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act. I would like to thank Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their support for this amendment.

I usually come down to the Senate floor to criticize the amount of unrequested spending in appropriations bills. Not often do I propose an increase in spending for a specific program. However, today, I feel obligated to offer an amendment to increase the level of funding for the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program with the Corporation for National and Community Service. I am requesting that we raise our level of funding by $5 million, to bring the total level of funding to $10 million, which is what the program was funded at last year. The administration requested a total of $15 million for this program this year. We are simply proposing to restore one half of the additional money the President requested. This issue is of enough importance to the administration as it was included in their Statement of Administrative Policy.

The amendment Senator Bayh and I propose restores important money to the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program, a critical component on national service. This amendment increases the funding for this program by $5 million to be more in line with the amount requested in the President's 2004 Budget.

We live in a time of heightened security where terror alerts have become an unfortunate reality. It is sobering to realize that the chances are strong that we will face another terrorist attack in the future. In addition to devoting considerable resources to fighting terror at home and abroad, we need to devote significant resources to preparing our domestic response to any future attack. We would be failing in our responsibilities if we do not adequately prepare for the next attack. The realities of the world in which we live today, require us to educate and prepare the public about terrorism and disasters. These volunteers are an extremely effective way to achieve our mission. We need to be fully funding these programs.

For a number of years, Senator Bayh and I have been working together to increase opportunities for service in the United States. We have introduced legislation, the Call to Service Act, in the last two Congresses that would increase volunteer opportunities with AmeriCorps. We have also worked together successfully to create a short-term enlistment program for our military. One of the fundamental aspects to any expansion of service opportunities must be to increase the number of volunteers in homeland security projects. Our legislation specifically calls for more volunteers to perform homeland security function. Service programs such as the one in this amendment provide an important resources in preparing our Nation to respond to a range of emergencies by providing people who can serve in important capacities such as fighting forest fires, disaster relief, and working in hospital emergency rooms.

I would like to share some examples of the works these volunteers do in the various states and country. Currently, there are 17 programs that received money during the second year of this program. The grantees are a diverse group and are spread across the country from Alaska to Florida. Important

groups such as Volunteer Florida, the American Red Cross of Greater New York and the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee are all grantees under this program.

In the first year of the program, 350 volunteers with the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska were able to deliver training to help homebound seniors and help 4,500 disabled residents of Anchorage prepare to respond to a disaster.

In Oklahoma, volunteers with the city of Tulsa developed a citywide volunteer disaster mobilization plan. Volunteers helped to educate the general public by distributing a family preparedness guide provided with information how to prepare for disasters. The volunteers convened meetings that included information on bioterrorism response by local health departments and established safe and secure teams throughout the community to serve as trained resources.

I could go on at length about the good things these programs accomplish.

Increasing the Special Volunteers for Homeland Security program is consistent with our overall need to increase opportunities for Americans to serve their country. We need to increase spending for funding for all volunteer programs. Internationally, increasing programs such as the Peace Corps are important in spreading American ideals and values. Domestically, programs such as AmeriCorps need to be expanded to provide services and assistance to those in need. Any expansion of AmeriCorps and domestic volunteer opportunities would be an excellent opportunity to increase volunteer positions in the area of homeland security.

Once again, I thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Iowa for their work on this important piece of legislation. I look forward to continuing my work with Senator Bayh and the rest of my colleagues in the Senate to increase national service opportunities.

amendment No. 1644

Mr. President, I support swift passage of the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Acts, S. 1416 and S. 1417, respectively. These are the first in what I hope will be a long list of trade agreement implementation bills necessary to enact trade deals negotiated and signed by the President under the authority granted him by Congress last year.

Stemming from the Trade Act of 2002, which included Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), agreements such as the two before us are helping to reestablish U.S. credibility in the area of trade. The President and his administration are now able to more freely negotiate, encouraging countries once reluctant to begin trade negotiations with the U.S. to come to the table. The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.- Singapore Free Trade Agreement are prime examples of the United States' commitment to free and open trade. I hope they provide a launching pad for new trade agreements with key partners in every region of the world.

Our staunchest allies and most important trading partners have had reason to doubt our dedication to the free trade principles we have long advocated as a driving force of prosperity and stability. A series of short-sighted, protectionist actions in recent years has jeopardized our relationships with our most important trading partners. That makes enactment of these bilateral free trade agreements even more important.

These agreements may not have a dramatic economic impact in the United States, but they are sure to yield benefits to American consumers and businesses. Enactment of agreements such as those before us help us regain our credibility and leadership in championing free- trade principles around the world. I hope they set a precedent for more aggressive liberalization of our trade with other nations in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.

I commend Ambassador Zoellick for his efforts to bring these free trade agreements to fruition, as well as for his commitment to exhaustive consultations with Congress. Our agreement with Chile is one more step towards our goal of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, on which we all hope to see greater progress. Our agreement with Singapore, a key ally in the war on terror, will hopefully help propel future trade liberalization in Southeast Asia, one of the world's most dynamic regions.

As it stands now, Singapore is our 12th largest trading partner, and our largest trading partner in the strategic region of Southeast Asia. This agreement would eliminate many barriers to trade and investment, and improve market access and opportunities for U.S. goods and services. In addition, this agreement would provide regulatory reforms and transparency, two key components in establishing the strong ties and trust necessary for trade.

Implementation of the negotiated agreement with Chile would place us on an equal footing with the European Union and Canada, which already enjoy their own FTAs with Chile. Despite having to play market access catch-up, our farmers and ranchers will enjoy duty-free access to Chile's markets within 12 years; and computer and other information technology products, medical equipment, and other goods will gain immediate duty-free access.

Throughout the negotiating process, environmental and labor matters received considerable scrutiny. The FTAs address these concerns through provisions laid out in both agreements that call for Singapore and Chile to provide a high level of environmental protection, and require each nation to endeavor to improve upon their laws where necessary. Each nation is to reaffirm its obligations as part of the International Labor Organization and strive to make sure its laws reflect the labor principles therein.

These negotiations and the agreements they have produced are a good start towards accomplishing Congress' purpose for passing the Trade Act last year: an aggressive agenda to liberalize trade with key partners, producing comprehensive agreements which reduce barriers to trade, providing tangible benefits to American consumers and businesses, and reestablishing our credibility and leadership in championing free trade principles around the world.

I am, however, concerned that immigration provisions contained in these trade bills set a bad precedent. Although I support the spirit of these provisions, I strongly believe that changes to U.S. immigration policy should be thoroughly debated in Congress and such modifications do not belong in trade agreements negotiated between our government and other nations. I discourage their inclusion in future trade agreements.

Overall, these are fine examples of what Congress intended when we passed TPA. I hope we will soon see action on free trade agreements that are currently being negotiated with Australia, Central America, Morocco, Southern Africa, and others in the not too distant future. I also would like to see the Administration take concrete steps to liberalize trade in the greater Middle East, in effect operationalizing the President's call for a free trade area there within a decade.

Finally, I hope that the administration, with Congress's support, can make significant progress in the next round of global trade talks this fall. Global trade liberalization through the World Trade Organization is the most effective and efficient way to bring down barriers to trade, the best way to open the markets of key trading partners in Europe and Asia, and to enforce

free trade principles. The conclusion of economically meaningful bilateral trade agreements, coupled with an aggressive campaign for global trade liberalization, will reestablish our credibility and leadership on free trade and energize the American and global economies. America and the world will be better off as a result.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Kyl in introducing legislation that would rename the Veterans Administration medical center in Prescott, AZ after Bob Stump.

In June of this year, Arizonans suffered a major loss with the passing of Bob Stump, a native son who made his mark for our State and our Nation. Congressman Stump had a patriot's devotion to those who served our country in uniform. He will be deeply missed by his friends, family and a grateful Nation.

Congressman Stump served his country and the residents of Arizona admirably in the United States Navy, during World War II; in the Arizona State legislature; and in the United States Congress.

Congressman Stump's service in the House of Representatives was marked by this dedication to his constituents in Arizona. Never one for the trappings of a political office, Bob read and responded to all of his mail, he never had Press Secretary and often answered the office phone personally.

One could not overlook his leadership in Defense and Veterans issues. Serving as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, his work has so beneficial to America's veterans that a street in Arlington National Cemetery was named after him. Everywhere I travel, veterans remark to me that Bob Stump put Veterans needs first.

Bob's strong leadership of the House Armed Services Committee helped usher in many of the technological advances that characterize our modern military.

This legislation serves as a memorial to a member of Congress who left an indelible legacy.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation to authorize a three-year nationwide school choice demonstration program targeted at children from economically disadvantaged families. The Excellence Through Choice to Elevate Learning Act, or the EXCEL Act, will expand educational opportunities for low-income children by providing parents and students the freedom to choose the best school for their unique academic needs while encouraging schools to be creative and responsive to the needs of all students.

This bill authorizes $1.8 billion annually for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 to be used to provide school choice vouchers to economically disadvantaged children throughout the nation. The funds allocated by the bill will be divided among states based upon the number of children they have enrolled in public schools. States will then conduct a lottery among low-income children who attend the public schools with the lowest academic performance in their State. Each child selected in the lottery would receive $2,000 per year for three years to be used to pay tuition at any school of their choice in the State, including private or religious schools. The money could also be used to pay for transportation to the school or supplementary educational services to meet the unique needs of the individual student.

In total, this bill authorizes $5.4 billion for the three-year school choice demonstration program, as well as an evaluation of the program by the General Accounting Office. The cost of this important test of school vouchers is fully offset by eliminating more than $5.4 billion in unnecessary pork and inequitable corporate tax loopholes.

We all know that one of the most important issues facing our nation is the education of our children. We must strive to develop and implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education system thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically and personally. I am sure we all agree that increasing the academic performance and skills of all our nation's students must be the paramount goal of any education reform we implement.

School vouchers are a viable method of allowing all American children access to high quality schools, including private and religious schools. Every parent, not just the wealthy, should be able to obtain the highest quality education for their children. Tuition vouchers would provide low-income children trapped in poor or mediocre

schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege.

Some of my colleagues may argue that vouchers would divert money away from our Nation's public schools. They will claim it is better to pour more and more money into poor performing public schools, rather than promote competition in our school systems. I respectfully disagree. While I support strengthening financial support for education in our nation, the solution to what ails our system is not money alone.

Currently our nation spends significantly more money on education than most countries and yet our students consistently score lower than their peers. Students in countries which are struggling economically, socially and politically, such as Russia, outscore U.S. children in critical subjects such as math and physics. Clearly, we must make significant change beyond blindly throwing money into the current structure in order to improve our children's academic performance in order to maintain a viable force in the world economy.

It is shameful that we are failing to provide many of our children with adequate training and quality academic preparation for the real world. The number of college freshmen who require remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably high. It does not bode well for our future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace.

I concede that school vouchers are not the magic bullet for eradicating all that is wrong with our current educational system, but they are an important opportunity for providing improved academic opportunities for all children, not just the wealthy. Examination of the limited voucher programs scattered around our country reveal high levels of parent and student satisfaction, an increase in parental involvement, and a definite improvement in attendance and discipline at the participating schools. Vouchers encourage public schools, communities and parents to work together to raise the level of education for all students. Through this bill, we have the opportunity to replicate these important benefits throughout all our nation's communities.

Thomas Jefferson said, ``The purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts.'' If we fail to give our children the education they need to nurture their heads and hearts, then we threaten their futures and the future of our nation. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our children have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality.

The time has come for us to finally conduct a national demonstration of school choice to determine the benefits or perhaps disadvantages of providing educational choices to all students, not just those who are fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the needs of America's school children ahead of pork barrel projects and tax loopholes benefitting only special interests and big business.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Kyl in introducing legislation that would rename the Veterans Administration medical center in Prescott, AZ after Bob Stump.

In June of this year, Arizonans suffered a major loss with the passing of Bob Stump, a native son who made his mark for our State and our Nation. Congressman Stump had a patriot's devotion to those who served our country in uniform. He will be deeply missed by his friends, family and a grateful Nation.

Congressman Stump served his country and the residents of Arizona admirably in the United States Navy, during World War II; in the Arizona State legislature; and in the United States Congress.

Congressman Stump's service in the House of Representatives was marked by this dedication to his constituents in Arizona. Never one for the trappings of a political office, Bob read and responded to all of his mail, he never had Press Secretary and often answered the office phone personally.

One could not overlook his leadership in Defense and Veterans issues. Serving as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, his work has so beneficial to America's veterans that a street in Arlington National Cemetery was named after him. Everywhere I travel, veterans remark to me that Bob Stump put Veterans needs first.

Bob's strong leadership of the House Armed Services Committee helped usher in many of the technological advances that characterize our modern military.

This legislation serves as a memorial to a member of Congress who left an indelible legacy.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation to authorize a three-year nationwide school choice demonstration program targeted at children from economically disadvantaged families. The Excellence Through Choice to Elevate Learning Act, or the EXCEL Act, will expand educational opportunities for low-income children by providing parents and students the freedom to choose the best school for their unique academic needs while encouraging schools to be creative and responsive to the needs of all students.

This bill authorizes $1.8 billion annually for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 to be used to provide school choice vouchers to economically disadvantaged children throughout the nation. The funds allocated by the bill will be divided among states based upon the number of children they have enrolled in public schools. States will then conduct a lottery among low-income children who attend the public schools with the lowest academic performance in their State. Each child selected in the lottery would receive $2,000 per year for three years to be used to pay tuition at any school of their choice in the State, including private or religious schools. The money could also be used to pay for transportation to the school or supplementary educational services to meet the unique needs of the individual student.

In total, this bill authorizes $5.4 billion for the three-year school choice demonstration program, as well as an evaluation of the program by the General Accounting Office. The cost of this important test of school vouchers is fully offset by eliminating more than $5.4 billion in unnecessary pork and inequitable corporate tax loopholes.

We all know that one of the most important issues facing our nation is the education of our children. We must strive to develop and implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education system thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically and personally. I am sure we all agree that increasing the academic performance and skills of all our nation's students must be the paramount goal of any education reform we implement.

School vouchers are a viable method of allowing all American children access to high quality schools, including private and religious schools. Every parent, not just the wealthy, should be able to obtain the highest quality education for their children. Tuition vouchers would provide low-income children trapped in poor or mediocre

schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege.

Some of my colleagues may argue that vouchers would divert money away from our Nation's public schools. They will claim it is better to pour more and more money into poor performing public schools, rather than promote competition in our school systems. I respectfully disagree. While I support strengthening financial support for education in our nation, the solution to what ails our system is not money alone.

Currently our nation spends significantly more money on education than most countries and yet our students consistently score lower than their peers. Students in countries which are struggling economically, socially and politically, such as Russia, outscore U.S. children in critical subjects such as math and physics. Clearly, we must make significant change beyond blindly throwing money into the current structure in order to improve our children's academic performance in order to maintain a viable force in the world economy.

It is shameful that we are failing to provide many of our children with adequate training and quality academic preparation for the real world. The number of college freshmen who require remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably high. It does not bode well for our future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace.

I concede that school vouchers are not the magic bullet for eradicating all that is wrong with our current educational system, but they are an important opportunity for providing improved academic opportunities for all children, not just the wealthy. Examination of the limited voucher programs scattered around our country reveal high levels of parent and student satisfaction, an increase in parental involvement, and a definite improvement in attendance and discipline at the participating schools. Vouchers encourage public schools, communities and parents to work together to raise the level of education for all students. Through this bill, we have the opportunity to replicate these important benefits throughout all our nation's communities.

Thomas Jefferson said, ``The purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts.'' If we fail to give our children the education they need to nurture their heads and hearts, then we threaten their futures and the future of our nation. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our children have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality.

The time has come for us to finally conduct a national demonstration of school choice to determine the benefits or perhaps disadvantages of providing educational choices to all students, not just those who are fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the needs of America's school children ahead of pork barrel projects and tax loopholes benefitting only special interests and big business.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act.'' This legislation is designed to increase the flow of political information in broadcast media and to reduce the cost to candidates of educating the electorate on their candidacy.

Consistent with broadcasters' obligations to serve the public interest in exchange for being licensed to use the public airwaves, the bill would require broadcast licensees to air a minimum of two hours per week of candidate-centered or issue-centered programming before a primary or general Federal election. This legislation also would establish a program to provide candidates and national committees of political parties vouchers that they may use for political advertisements on radio and television broadcast stations. An annual spectrum use fee paid by broadcasters would fund the voucher system. Finally, the bill would require broadcast television and radio stations to provide candidates and parties with non-preemptible advertising time at the lowest rate provided to any other advertiser.

At a recent Committee hearing I chaired on the public interest obligations of broadcasters, it became apparent that local broadcasters are not adequately covering political campaigns as part of their local newscasts. The hearing examined the results of a study prepared by the Lear Center Local News Archive, which found that over a seven-week period from September 18, 2002 through November 4, 2002, 56 percent of the top-rated half-hour news broadcasts did not contain a single political campaign story. In the 44 percent of broadcasts that did contain campaign coverage, the average campaign story was 89 seconds long. When campaigned stories did air, only 28 percent contained stories where candidates spoke with the average sound bit being 12 seconds long.

This study illustrates the pressures on political candidates to raise money because they are forced to gain the public's attention through the use of costly advertisements. Our democracy is stronger when a candidate's success is achieved by ideas, not by dollars, and when an electorate is informed by facts, not 12-second sound bites. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, by request, I am introducing the Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, the Administration's long-awaited legislative proposal for restructuring Amtrak and the intercity passenger rail program. In doing so, I want to express my appreciation to Transportation Secretary Mineta and departing Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson for meeting their commitment to me in April to deliver the Administration's proposal before the August recess. I also want to credit the work of the Amtrak Reform Council, the basis for several elements of the Administration's plan.

Amtrak began operation in 1971 as a for-profit corporation and was to be free of all Federal support by 1973. Throughout its history, including between 1997 and 2001, Amtrak led Congress to believe that profitability, or at least operational self-sufficiency was achievable. But 32 years after its establishment, Amtrak is running annual deficits exceeding $1 billion; has run up a debt of nearly $5 billion; continues to operate trains that lose over $400 per passenger; and yet still has less than 1 percent of the intercity travel market. Clearly, reform is needed.

I hope the legislation I am introducing today will serve as the basis for developing a consensus about the future of Amtrak and intercity rail passenger service. Even Amtrak supporters should admit that without significant restructuring, the passenger rail program cannot be entrusted with billions of dollars of additional financial support from the taxpayers, as some are proposing, particularly financing outside of the annual appropriations process, which at least gives Congress the ability to adjust Amtrak's funding based on its performance and use of taxpayer dollars. Nor, in my view, should high-speed rail projects go forward until the Amtrak problem is solved.

My priority is to establish a network of train service that makes economic sense, minimizes subsidies at all levels of government, and provides fair and open competition for Amtrak. The Administration's proposal is a good start. Federal support for intercity passenger rail service would be modeled after the existing transit program and consist of capital funding matched by the States and managed through a ``full funding grant agreement'' process. States, rather than the Federal Government, would be responsible for funding operating losses after a transition period.

Following the recommendation of the Amtrak Reform Council, the legislation would divide Amtrak into an operating company which would operate train services, and an infrastructure company which would maintain the Northeast Corridor (NEC). After a transition period, the services provided by both companies would be subject to competition through competitive bidding. The NEC would be restored to a state of good repair, and leased to and managed by an interstate compact. Amtrak would not be privatized but would have to compete with companies in the private sector, ensuring a lower-cost solution for the taxpayers.

I intend to hold a hearing on the Administration's bill and the bill being introduced today by Senator Hutchison, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine. If a consensus can be reached on a responsible proposal to fund and reform Amtrak and provide for an improved rail passenger program, the Committee will mark up legislation in the fall.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act.'' This legislation is designed to increase the flow of political information in broadcast media and to reduce the cost to candidates of educating the electorate on their candidacy.

Consistent with broadcasters' obligations to serve the public interest in exchange for being licensed to use the public airwaves, the bill would require broadcast licensees to air a minimum of two hours per week of candidate-centered or issue-centered programming before a primary or general Federal election. This legislation also would establish a program to provide candidates and national committees of political parties vouchers that they may use for political advertisements on radio and television broadcast stations. An annual spectrum use fee paid by broadcasters would fund the voucher system. Finally, the bill would require broadcast television and radio stations to provide candidates and parties with non-preemptible advertising time at the lowest rate provided to any other advertiser.

At a recent Committee hearing I chaired on the public interest obligations of broadcasters, it became apparent that local broadcasters are not adequately covering political campaigns as part of their local newscasts. The hearing examined the results of a study prepared by the Lear Center Local News Archive, which found that over a seven-week period from September 18, 2002 through November 4, 2002, 56 percent of the top-rated half-hour news broadcasts did not contain a single political campaign story. In the 44 percent of broadcasts that did contain campaign coverage, the average campaign story was 89 seconds long. When campaigned stories did air, only 28 percent contained stories where candidates spoke with the average sound bit being 12 seconds long.

This study illustrates the pressures on political candidates to raise money because they are forced to gain the public's attention through the use of costly advertisements. Our democracy is stronger when a candidate's success is achieved by ideas, not by dollars, and when an electorate is informed by facts, not 12-second sound bites. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, by request, I am introducing the Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, the Administration's long-awaited legislative proposal for restructuring Amtrak and the intercity passenger rail program. In doing so, I want to express my appreciation to Transportation Secretary Mineta and departing Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson for meeting their commitment to me in April to deliver the Administration's proposal before the August recess. I also want to credit the work of the Amtrak Reform Council, the basis for several elements of the Administration's plan.

Amtrak began operation in 1971 as a for-profit corporation and was to be free of all Federal support by 1973. Throughout its history, including between 1997 and 2001, Amtrak led Congress to believe that profitability, or at least operational self-sufficiency was achievable. But 32 years after its establishment, Amtrak is running annual deficits exceeding $1 billion; has run up a debt of nearly $5 billion; continues to operate trains that lose over $400 per passenger; and yet still has less than 1 percent of the intercity travel market. Clearly, reform is needed.

I hope the legislation I am introducing today will serve as the basis for developing a consensus about the future of Amtrak and intercity rail passenger service. Even Amtrak supporters should admit that without significant restructuring, the passenger rail program cannot be entrusted with billions of dollars of additional financial support from the taxpayers, as some are proposing, particularly financing outside of the annual appropriations process, which at least gives Congress the ability to adjust Amtrak's funding based on its performance and use of taxpayer dollars. Nor, in my view, should high-speed rail projects go forward until the Amtrak problem is solved.

My priority is to establish a network of train service that makes economic sense, minimizes subsidies at all levels of government, and provides fair and open competition for Amtrak. The Administration's proposal is a good start. Federal support for intercity passenger rail service would be modeled after the existing transit program and consist of capital funding matched by the States and managed through a ``full funding grant agreement'' process. States, rather than the Federal Government, would be responsible for funding operating losses after a transition period.

Following the recommendation of the Amtrak Reform Council, the legislation would divide Amtrak into an operating company which would operate train services, and an infrastructure company which would maintain the Northeast Corridor (NEC). After a transition period, the services provided by both companies would be subject to competition through competitive bidding. The NEC would be restored to a state of good repair, and leased to and managed by an interstate compact. Amtrak would not be privatized but would have to compete with companies in the private sector, ensuring a lower-cost solution for the taxpayers.

I intend to hold a hearing on the Administration's bill and the bill being introduced today by Senator Hutchison, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine. If a consensus can be reached on a responsible proposal to fund and reform Amtrak and provide for an improved rail passenger program, the Committee will mark up legislation in the fall.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to serve as the basis for much needed reforms to the Federal Government's management of Indian trust funds and trust assets within the U.S. Department of the Interior. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Daschle and Johnson, in this effort, as well as by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall whom are sponsoring a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

This legislation is a reflection of a continuing effort by my colleagues and myself to develop a trust reform proposal that will not only serve to improve the Federal Government's administration and management of Indian trust funds and trust assets but it will also institute a role for Indian tribes to participate in developing additional needed reforms and enhance the principles of tribal self- determination.

Earlier this year, Senators Daschle, Johnson, and myself introduced similar trust reform legislation and received substantive feedback from Indian country on the bill. This feedback helped us in developing this new legislative proposal, which will serve as the framework for instituting broader reforms necessary for long-term management of tribal trust resources and enhancing Federal Indian policy. I thank the tribes and tribal organizations such as the Inter Tribal Monitoring Association, the Native American Rights Fund, and the National Congress of American Indians, which worked with our offices and helped to formulate the concepts embodied in this proposal. We are encouraged by their efforts and support to seek a legislative remedy to these difficult problems.

The basic elements of this bill focus on three primary areas: the management of trust funds and trust assets will be elevated in the overall Department by designating a Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs to assume the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs and the Special Trustee. Second, as determined by the court and the administration, it is Congress' duty to affirm fiduciary standards for proper management of these trust funds and trust assets, and this bill includes such standards. And, third, the role of the tribes is enhanced through affirmation of the authority of tribes to utilize self-determination laws to manage their own funds and assets. Tribes will also be engaged in determining additional necessary reforms through participation in an established congressional commission.

The mismanagement of Indian trust funds is a long and disgraceful chapter in the history of this Nation. The 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act was enacted to take measures to reconcile these accounts and return the money to the Native American beneficiaries. Unfortunately, as continuing management problems persist and Native Americans are left out of the decision-making process about the management of their resources, it is time for Congress to step up and take decisive action to once again require significant reform with the active participation of the tribes.

I am pleased that Senators Daschle and Johnson are committed to working with me once again on this legislation, and I am also encouraged by the interest of our House counterparts to jointly introduce this bill with us. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the tribes to advance this legislation. We are willing to consider additional review and comments and expect to further refine this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

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

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, our Nation awoke to the realization that we are not as safe as we once believed. Soon after, we began critical efforts to improve our homeland security. Those efforts remain ongoing today. As we work to improve the security of our homeland, securing our borders remains one of the most difficult and important challenges facing our Nation today. The simple fact is, our borders are not secure, and no amount of money, equipment, or manpower alone will not ensure the safety of our Nation.

Over the past several years, I have supported many efforts to improve border security and address the repercussions of poor enforcement and failed immigration policies. It is imperative that we not shirk from what are Federal responsibilities. We must address the many unfunded mandates born by States and local communities because control of immigration is principally the responsibility of the Federal Government. We must continue efforts designed to improve infrastructure and technology at and between our ports of entry as well as enhance coordination between Federal, State and local law enforcement personnel. However, without comprehensive immigration reform, all of these efforts will be ineffective and meaningless.

In order to address these concerns and to balance the need to secure our borders while addressing the inconsistencies and contradictions of our Nation's immigration policy, I am introducing the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act. This bill is the first comprehensive immigration reform package introduced this Congress, and I hope that it will serve to initiate an important and necessary dialog so that we may address the security needs of our country and reform our failed immigration system.

The Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act establishes two new visa programs. One addresses individuals wishing to enter the United States to work on a short-term basis while the other will be available for the undocumented immigrants currently residing in the

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to serve as the basis for much needed reforms to the Federal Government's management of Indian trust funds and trust assets within the U.S. Department of the Interior. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Daschle and Johnson, in this effort, as well as by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall whom are sponsoring a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

This legislation is a reflection of a continuing effort by my colleagues and myself to develop a trust reform proposal that will not only serve to improve the Federal Government's administration and management of Indian trust funds and trust assets but it will also institute a role for Indian tribes to participate in developing additional needed reforms and enhance the principles of tribal self- determination.

Earlier this year, Senators Daschle, Johnson, and myself introduced similar trust reform legislation and received substantive feedback from Indian country on the bill. This feedback helped us in developing this new legislative proposal, which will serve as the framework for instituting broader reforms necessary for long-term management of tribal trust resources and enhancing Federal Indian policy. I thank the tribes and tribal organizations such as the Inter Tribal Monitoring Association, the Native American Rights Fund, and the National Congress of American Indians, which worked with our offices and helped to formulate the concepts embodied in this proposal. We are encouraged by their efforts and support to seek a legislative remedy to these difficult problems.

The basic elements of this bill focus on three primary areas: the management of trust funds and trust assets will be elevated in the overall Department by designating a Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs to assume the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs and the Special Trustee. Second, as determined by the court and the administration, it is Congress' duty to affirm fiduciary standards for proper management of these trust funds and trust assets, and this bill includes such standards. And, third, the role of the tribes is enhanced through affirmation of the authority of tribes to utilize self-determination laws to manage their own funds and assets. Tribes will also be engaged in determining additional necessary reforms through participation in an established congressional commission.

The mismanagement of Indian trust funds is a long and disgraceful chapter in the history of this Nation. The 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act was enacted to take measures to reconcile these accounts and return the money to the Native American beneficiaries. Unfortunately, as continuing management problems persist and Native Americans are left out of the decision-making process about the management of their resources, it is time for Congress to step up and take decisive action to once again require significant reform with the active participation of the tribes.

I am pleased that Senators Daschle and Johnson are committed to working with me once again on this legislation, and I am also encouraged by the interest of our House counterparts to jointly introduce this bill with us. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the tribes to advance this legislation. We are willing to consider additional review and comments and expect to further refine this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

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

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, our Nation awoke to the realization that we are not as safe as we once believed. Soon after, we began critical efforts to improve our homeland security. Those efforts remain ongoing today. As we work to improve the security of our homeland, securing our borders remains one of the most difficult and important challenges facing our Nation today. The simple fact is, our borders are not secure, and no amount of money, equipment, or manpower alone will not ensure the safety of our Nation.

Over the past several years, I have supported many efforts to improve border security and address the repercussions of poor enforcement and failed immigration policies. It is imperative that we not shirk from what are Federal responsibilities. We must address the many unfunded mandates born by States and local communities because control of immigration is principally the responsibility of the Federal Government. We must continue efforts designed to improve infrastructure and technology at and between our ports of entry as well as enhance coordination between Federal, State and local law enforcement personnel. However, without comprehensive immigration reform, all of these efforts will be ineffective and meaningless.

In order to address these concerns and to balance the need to secure our borders while addressing the inconsistencies and contradictions of our Nation's immigration policy, I am introducing the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act. This bill is the first comprehensive immigration reform package introduced this Congress, and I hope that it will serve to initiate an important and necessary dialog so that we may address the security needs of our country and reform our failed immigration system.

The Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act establishes two new visa programs. One addresses individuals wishing to enter the United States to work on a short-term basis while the other will be available for the undocumented immigrants currently residing in the

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. McCAIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 1461 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, as with every appropriations bill, I come to the floor of the Senate to speak about the objectionable provisions that are often hidden in the text of the legislation. Just last week, I spoke at length about all the wasteful spending in this year's Defense Appropriations Act. However, I must commend the Appropriations Committee--especially the distinguished Senator from Mississippi--for their efforts in reporting out of committee a Homeland Security bill with minimal earmarks or unrequested spending. Seeing as this is the first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill, I am very encouraged that my friends on the Appropriations Committee resisted the urge to load this legislation with unrequested spending. I urge my colleagues to ensure the bill remains this way as it progresses through conference.

The Department of Homeland Security plays a crucial role in our Nation's defense. In no place is the role of our Department of Homeland Security more vital than in protecting our Nation's borders.

Waves of undocumented immigrants still cross the border daily, leaving a trail of death and destruction in their wake. Those who survive the journey place enormous strains on the residents of Arizona and other border States. All aspects of life for the residents of Arizona are affected by costs of illegal immigration. The situation has gotten so desperate along the border, a group of citizens has resorted to vigilante actions to defend the borders because they believe the Federal Government has failed them. While I believe the actions of these groups are dangerous, they illustrate the dire situation faced by the residents of Arizona. It is vital that we continue to increase resources, particularly manpower and improve the technology along our borders. I am particularly encouraged by the development of new technologies such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs, which may prove extremely useful in patrolling the areas between our ports of entry.

This bill provides much-needed funding for our Nation's borders. However, money alone will not solve this problem. The militarization of our borders is not the answer. As long as there are better paying jobs in the United States, there will be a steady supply of people coming into this Nation looking for work. Legal immigration plays an important role in contributing to the economic growth and prosperity of our Nation. Our Nation's tradition of legal immigration must be respected while the Federal Government works to solve the problems along the border. One solution to the problem that will address our Nation's national security needs and prevent further deaths in the Arizona desert is to enact comprehensive immigration reform. This is not just an issue that affects those residing in border States, it affects all Americans. We must work together to address this situation.

Despite the overall lack of objectionable provisions in this legislation, I would like to express my concern about the committee's decision to move funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant, FIRE grant program, from the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate to the Office for Domestic Preparedness. As the chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I am familiar with the success of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. FIRE grants are made directly to local jurisdictions after their applications undergo a competitive, merit- based process. FIRE grant recipients use such funds to help meet their basic needs for equipment and training to respond to ``all-hazards,'' including wildfires, tornadoes, floods, and structural fires--not just antiterrorism efforts. I am concerned that the Office for Domestic Preparedness, ODP, has no experience with the basic needs of firefighters or administering a program like the FIRE grant program.

I wish to acknowledge that the administration's budget submission seeks to move this grant program over to ODP, while promising to administer the grant program in a manner similar to that which is done now, with an interest in ensuring that there is one-stop shopping and better coordination for emergency preparedness grants. I understand that goal and am more than willing to work with my colleagues to ensure better coordination of our emergency preparedness efforts. In fact, just last month, the Commerce Committee reported legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration and improve coordination and training for first responders. That legislation is the appropriate vehicle to consider any programmatic changes, instead of this or any other appropriations bill.

I am also disappointed that the Senate choose to accept a ``Buy America'' provision by voice vote. I firmly object to all ``Buy America'' restrictions, as represent prime examples of protectionist trade policy. I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all 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. Buy America'' provisions cost our Department of Defense over $5.5 billion each year, I do not want to see the same problems arise with the Department of Homeland Security. I urge the removal of this provision during the House-Senate conference.

Once again, I thank the appropriators for their diligence in passing a relatively clean homeland security appropriations bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the objectionable provisions I have found in this legislation be printed in the Record. I hope that this continues with future appropriations.

Mr. President, recognizing that the communities along our Nation's border are literally our front line of defense, it is in the interest of our national security to ensure that these areas are well equipped to respond to health emergencies and potential bioterror attacks. To address the critical needs of this vulnerable region, I am pleased to once again join my good friends from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn, in introducing the Border Health Security Act of 2003.

Ten years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a bill which we believed represented a first step toward addressing the many health challenges confronting the U.S.-Mexico border region as it faced growing population and an expanding industrial base. The United States- Mexico Border Health Commission Act authorized the President to enter into a bilateral agreement with Mexico and establish a binational commission on border health, and was signed into law in the fall of 1994.

Six years later the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Health of Mexico signed an agreement creating the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. Although still in its infancy, the Commission serves to draw attention to the unique needs of the border region, while improving and protecting the health and well- being of the residents on both sides of the border.

The bill we are introducing today builds upon the effort we began 10 years ago. This legislation authorizes two new grant programs targeting health care and bioterror preparedness in the border area in addition to funding for the Commission.

The first grant program we establish, the Border Health Grants, will be competitively awarded to programs that improve health care infrastructure or address the unique health care needs of the border region. Eligible programs could address health disparities, public health, maternal and child health, and conditions with a high prevalence in the border area. Acknowledging our national vulnerability in the wake of September 11 attacks and the need to ensure that bioterror efforts are specifically focused on the border region, our bill establishes bioterror preparedness grants for activities including coordination of bioterror and emergency preparedness, improvements in infrastructure, and education and training.

The communities along our Nation's southern border typically have high rates of uninsured and underinsured individuals, unemployment, and poverty. This region also has higher rates of infections and chronic diseases, often exacerbated by migrant populations. Compounding these problems is the lack of health care facilities and qualified health care professionals. According to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, if the border area were a state, it would rank last in access in health care, second in death rates due to hepatitis, third in deaths related to diabetes, first in number of TB cases and last in per capita income.

I have long supported legislative initiatives aimed at improving the security and quality of life in our border area. This bill is a part of that ongoing effort. As our Nation enters a new era of heightened national alert, it is incumbent upon us to ensure our border area--our front line of defense--is strenghtened and protected.