Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to designate the Director of the Indian Health Service as an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health within the Department of Health and Human Services. I'm pleased that my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Campbell, Murray, Johnson, and Domenici are joining me in this effort as original co-sponsors.

The purpose of this legislation is simple. It will redesignate the current Director of the Indian Health Service, IHS, as a new Assistant Secretary within the Department of Health and Human Services to be responsible for Indian health policy and budgetary matters.

The Indian Health Service is the primary health care delivery system and principal advocate for Indian health care needs, both on the reservation level and for urban populations. More than 1.6 million Indian people are served every year by the IHS, yet the agency has not had the necessary resources to fully meet tribal health care needs. The IHS will continue to be challenged by a growing Indian population as well as an increasing disparity between the health status of Indian people as compared to other Americans. Thousands of Indian people continue to suffer from the worst imaginable health care conditions in Indian country--from diabetes to cancer to infant mortality. In nearly every category, the health status of Native Americans falls far below the national standard.

The purpose of this bill is to respond to the desire by Indian people for a stronger leadership and policy role within the primary health care agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Health will ensure that critical policy and budgetary decisions will be made with the full involvement and consultation of not only the Indian Health Service, but also the direct involvement of tribal governments.

This legislation is long overdue in bringing focus and national attention to the health care status of Indian people and fulfilling the Federal trust responsibility toward Indian tribes. Implementation of this bill is intended to support the long-standing policies of Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance and assist Indian tribes who are making positive strides in providing direct health care to their own communities.

Tribal communities are in dire need of a senior policy official who is knowledgeable about the programs administered by the IHS and who can provide the leadership for the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. We continue to pursue passage of this legislation as many believe that the priority of Indian health issues within the Department should be raised to the highest levels within our federal government.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the Administration to ensure prompt passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Domenici, Dorgan, Kyl, Feinstein, Murkowski, Burns, and Murray to introduce the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act. For most of us, this is not a new issue. I have worked closely with many of my colleagues to address concerns regarding the protection of our Nation's borders, particularly the problems associated with illegal immigration.

The bill we are introducing today addresses border infrastructure, to ensure that our Nation's borders, both southern and northern, are as secure and up to date as possible. This bill will authorize. the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to address staffing shortages and hire additional agents, inspectors, and support staff. It will also authorize several studies and demonstration programs to improve infrastructure, security, facilitate trade, and expand the use of technology along the borders.

Cross-border commerce suffers greatly due to backups at our ports of entry. Two and three hour delays hinder the transport of goods from Mexico into the United States. Improving infrastructure at our ports of entry will increase our capability to screen trucks and individuals coming into the country in a more efficient manner, reducing the backups along the border and improving the free flow of commerce.

As undocumented aliens take increasingly desperate measures to cross our border with Mexico, the burden borne by States along the southwestern border continues to grow. The Federal Government's attempt to stem illegal immigration in Texas and California has made it increasingly difficult to cross the border in these States and has created a funnel effect, giving Arizona the dubious distinction of being the location of choice for illegal border crossings.

Reports suggest that at least one in three of the illegal border crossers arrested traversing the U.S.-Mexico border are stopped in Arizona. Last year approximately 320 people died in the

desert trying to cross the border. Additionally, the number of attacks on National Park Service officers has increased in recent years. Property crimes are rampant along the border, leaving Arizona with the highest per capita auto theft rate in the Nation. Times have become so desperate that vigilante groups have begun to form with the goal of doing the job the Federal Government is failing to do.

We must do all we can to improve the ports of entry along our borders with both our northern and our southern neighbors. Technology is the key to that goal, and this bill takes a big step toward ensuring that technological needs are assessed and that technology is improved.

There are between 7-9 million people in this country illegally. Many of these people entered our country legally but have overstayed their visas. By upgrading the technology for our ports of entry and further developing the entry-exit system we will have a way to better monitor these individuals. During this year's appropriations bill, I sponsored an amendment along with Senators Kyl and Feinstein to restore $165 million to entry-exit system and help the INS establish four pilot projects on the borders to effectively track and monitor immigration. This bill and the amendment we passed recently are both important ways to increase the resources available to the border.

Beyond the improvement of infrastructure, technology and security along the border, we must also address illegal immigration through a guest worker program. As long as there are jobs to be had on this side of the border, people will continue to attempt to cross illegally, and our national security will remain at risk.

I urge my colleagues to move expeditiously on this important piece of legislation, in order to ensure that in a time of new global threats, our Nation's borders are as safe as possible and American citizens are protected.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Domenici, Dorgan, Kyl, Feinstein, Murkowski, Burns, and Murray to introduce the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act. For most of us, this is not a new issue. I have worked closely with many of my colleagues to address concerns regarding the protection of our Nation's borders, particularly the problems associated with illegal immigration.

The bill we are introducing today addresses border infrastructure, to ensure that our Nation's borders, both southern and northern, are as secure and up to date as possible. This bill will authorize. the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to address staffing shortages and hire additional agents, inspectors, and support staff. It will also authorize several studies and demonstration programs to improve infrastructure, security, facilitate trade, and expand the use of technology along the borders.

Cross-border commerce suffers greatly due to backups at our ports of entry. Two and three hour delays hinder the transport of goods from Mexico into the United States. Improving infrastructure at our ports of entry will increase our capability to screen trucks and individuals coming into the country in a more efficient manner, reducing the backups along the border and improving the free flow of commerce.

As undocumented aliens take increasingly desperate measures to cross our border with Mexico, the burden borne by States along the southwestern border continues to grow. The Federal Government's attempt to stem illegal immigration in Texas and California has made it increasingly difficult to cross the border in these States and has created a funnel effect, giving Arizona the dubious distinction of being the location of choice for illegal border crossings.

Reports suggest that at least one in three of the illegal border crossers arrested traversing the U.S.-Mexico border are stopped in Arizona. Last year approximately 320 people died in the

desert trying to cross the border. Additionally, the number of attacks on National Park Service officers has increased in recent years. Property crimes are rampant along the border, leaving Arizona with the highest per capita auto theft rate in the Nation. Times have become so desperate that vigilante groups have begun to form with the goal of doing the job the Federal Government is failing to do.

We must do all we can to improve the ports of entry along our borders with both our northern and our southern neighbors. Technology is the key to that goal, and this bill takes a big step toward ensuring that technological needs are assessed and that technology is improved.

There are between 7-9 million people in this country illegally. Many of these people entered our country legally but have overstayed their visas. By upgrading the technology for our ports of entry and further developing the entry-exit system we will have a way to better monitor these individuals. During this year's appropriations bill, I sponsored an amendment along with Senators Kyl and Feinstein to restore $165 million to entry-exit system and help the INS establish four pilot projects on the borders to effectively track and monitor immigration. This bill and the amendment we passed recently are both important ways to increase the resources available to the border.

Beyond the improvement of infrastructure, technology and security along the border, we must also address illegal immigration through a guest worker program. As long as there are jobs to be had on this side of the border, people will continue to attempt to cross illegally, and our national security will remain at risk.

I urge my colleagues to move expeditiously on this important piece of legislation, in order to ensure that in a time of new global threats, our Nation's borders are as safe as possible and American citizens are protected.

Mr. President, I have long worked with my colleagues from Arizona and other border states to address issues, from health care to crime, that are associated with illegal immigration. In the 107th Congress, I joined Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, and a bipartisan group of Senators to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, to ensure that the Federal Government reimbursed States for the costs wrongly borne by local communities for the incarceration of undocumented immigrants. That bill was based on the premise that control of illegal immigration is principally the responsibility of the Federal Government.

Last November, that legislation was incorporated into the 21st Century Department of Justice Authorization Act. Despite its enactment, States and local governments continue to disproportionately bear the costs associated with incarcerating illegal immigrants. As undocumented aliens take increasingly desperate measures to cross our border with Mexico, the burden borne by States along the Southwestern border continues to grow.

The Federal Government's attempt to stem illegal immigration in Texas and California has made it increasingly difficult to cross the border in these States. Unfortunately, these actions have created a funnel effect, giving Arizona the dubious distinction of being the location of choice for illegal border crossers. Reports suggest that at least one in three of the illegal border crossers arrest traversing the U.S.- Mexico border are stopped in Arizona. Last year approximately 320 people died in the desert trying to cross the border. Additionally, the number of attacks on National Park Service Officers has increased in recent years. Property crimes are rampant along the border, leaving Arizona with the highest per-capita auto theft rate in the nation. Times have gotten so desperate that vigilante groups have begun to form with the goal of doing the job the Federal Government is failing to do.

The situation along our Southwestern border has reached a crisis. I will continue to support legislative initiatives aimed at addressing the problems that stem from illegal immigration. However, I strongly believe that the Federal Government desperately needs innovative legislation to address the source of this problem through a guest worker program. In the absence of guest worker legislation, we must continue supporting important programs, such as SCAAP, that assist the border States where the Federal Government has failed.

Covering the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants is yet another underfunded Federal mandate thrust upon struggling State governments. Less than two weeks ago, States were struck an enormous blow when the funding for SCAAP was cut in half by the FY 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill signed into law by the President. For my own State of Arizona, this means that rather than the $24 million reimbursement Arizona received in FY 2002--which barely covered one third of the actual cost borne by the State--at best Arizona can hope to receive half that amount. Even more disconcerting are recent suggestions that this program should be cut completely, because it does not fit within the mission of the Department of Justice.

I believe that SCAAP is absolutely necessary for all States, particularly those that line our Nation's Southern border. For that reason, Senator Feinstein and I are today introducing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, and Congressman Kolbe, who has introduced the companion to this bill in the House of Representatives, to correct this problem. The bill we are introducing today will extend the authorization of SCAAP through 2010 and to authorize increased funding levels to ensure that States are not shortchanged and funding for this important program continues to increase.

At a time when most states are experiencing the worst budge shortfalls since the Great Depression, the Federal Government must stop shirking the cost for what is truly a Federal responsibility. It is time for us to step up to the plate and reimburse states and local communities for the costs of our failure to adequately address illegal immigration.

Mr. President, I have long worked with my colleagues from Arizona and other border states to address issues, from health care to crime, that are associated with illegal immigration. In the 107th Congress, I joined Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, and a bipartisan group of Senators to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, to ensure that the Federal Government reimbursed States for the costs wrongly borne by local communities for the incarceration of undocumented immigrants. That bill was based on the premise that control of illegal immigration is principally the responsibility of the Federal Government.

Last November, that legislation was incorporated into the 21st Century Department of Justice Authorization Act. Despite its enactment, States and local governments continue to disproportionately bear the costs associated with incarcerating illegal immigrants. As undocumented aliens take increasingly desperate measures to cross our border with Mexico, the burden borne by States along the Southwestern border continues to grow.

The Federal Government's attempt to stem illegal immigration in Texas and California has made it increasingly difficult to cross the border in these States. Unfortunately, these actions have created a funnel effect, giving Arizona the dubious distinction of being the location of choice for illegal border crossers. Reports suggest that at least one in three of the illegal border crossers arrest traversing the U.S.- Mexico border are stopped in Arizona. Last year approximately 320 people died in the desert trying to cross the border. Additionally, the number of attacks on National Park Service Officers has increased in recent years. Property crimes are rampant along the border, leaving Arizona with the highest per-capita auto theft rate in the nation. Times have gotten so desperate that vigilante groups have begun to form with the goal of doing the job the Federal Government is failing to do.

The situation along our Southwestern border has reached a crisis. I will continue to support legislative initiatives aimed at addressing the problems that stem from illegal immigration. However, I strongly believe that the Federal Government desperately needs innovative legislation to address the source of this problem through a guest worker program. In the absence of guest worker legislation, we must continue supporting important programs, such as SCAAP, that assist the border States where the Federal Government has failed.

Covering the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants is yet another underfunded Federal mandate thrust upon struggling State governments. Less than two weeks ago, States were struck an enormous blow when the funding for SCAAP was cut in half by the FY 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill signed into law by the President. For my own State of Arizona, this means that rather than the $24 million reimbursement Arizona received in FY 2002--which barely covered one third of the actual cost borne by the State--at best Arizona can hope to receive half that amount. Even more disconcerting are recent suggestions that this program should be cut completely, because it does not fit within the mission of the Department of Justice.

I believe that SCAAP is absolutely necessary for all States, particularly those that line our Nation's Southern border. For that reason, Senator Feinstein and I are today introducing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, and Congressman Kolbe, who has introduced the companion to this bill in the House of Representatives, to correct this problem. The bill we are introducing today will extend the authorization of SCAAP through 2010 and to authorize increased funding levels to ensure that States are not shortchanged and funding for this important program continues to increase.

At a time when most states are experiencing the worst budge shortfalls since the Great Depression, the Federal Government must stop shirking the cost for what is truly a Federal responsibility. It is time for us to step up to the plate and reimburse states and local communities for the costs of our failure to adequately address illegal immigration.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a co-sponsor of this important legislation, the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2003, which would ratify negotiated settlements for Central Arizona Project, CAP, water allocations to municipalities, agricultural districts and Indian tribes, state CAP repayment obligations, and final adjudication of long-standing Indian water rights claims.

These settlements reflect more than 5 years of intensive negotiations by state, Federal, tribal, municipal, and private parties. I commend all those involved in these negotiations for their extraordinary commitment and diligence to reach this final stage in the settlement process. I also praise my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, and Interior Secretary Gail Norton, for their leadership in facilitating these settlements. From my experience in legislating past agreements, I recognize the enormous challenge of these negotiations, and I appreciate their personal dedication to this settlement process.

This legislation is vitally important to Arizona's future because these settlements will bring greater certainty and stability to Arizona's water supply by completing the allocation of CAP water supplies. Pending water rights claims by various Indian tribes and non- Indian users will be permanently settled as well as the repayment obligations of the State of Arizona for construction of the CAP.

I join with Senator Kyl today to express support for the agreements embodied in this bill and to encourage conclusion of this settlement process in the near future. Significant progress has been made in resolving key issues since we last sponsored a bill to facilitate this agreement in the 107th Congress. Some of these key issues pertain to the final apportionment of CAP water supplies, cost-sharing of CAP construction and water delivery systems, amendment of the 1982 settlement agreement with the Tohono O'odham Nation, mitigation measures necessitated by sustained drought conditions, and equitable apportionment of drought shortages.

While this bill reflects agreements reached on a host of issues after an intensive and extended effort by the numerous parties involved, it is important to emphasize that this bill does not represent the final settlement. All parties recognize that a very limited number of the provisions of this bill may be modified as the negotiations continue. We fully expect that the legislative process will culminate with a final agreement early in the next congressional session.

Mr. President, we introduce this bill today as an expression of our strong support of the various parties to successfully achieve conclusion to this process. The Arizona Water Settlements Act will be a historic accomplishment that will benefit all citizens of Arizona, the tribal communities, and the United States.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a co-sponsor of this important legislation, the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2003, which would ratify negotiated settlements for Central Arizona Project, CAP, water allocations to municipalities, agricultural districts and Indian tribes, state CAP repayment obligations, and final adjudication of long-standing Indian water rights claims.

These settlements reflect more than 5 years of intensive negotiations by state, Federal, tribal, municipal, and private parties. I commend all those involved in these negotiations for their extraordinary commitment and diligence to reach this final stage in the settlement process. I also praise my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, and Interior Secretary Gail Norton, for their leadership in facilitating these settlements. From my experience in legislating past agreements, I recognize the enormous challenge of these negotiations, and I appreciate their personal dedication to this settlement process.

This legislation is vitally important to Arizona's future because these settlements will bring greater certainty and stability to Arizona's water supply by completing the allocation of CAP water supplies. Pending water rights claims by various Indian tribes and non- Indian users will be permanently settled as well as the repayment obligations of the State of Arizona for construction of the CAP.

I join with Senator Kyl today to express support for the agreements embodied in this bill and to encourage conclusion of this settlement process in the near future. Significant progress has been made in resolving key issues since we last sponsored a bill to facilitate this agreement in the 107th Congress. Some of these key issues pertain to the final apportionment of CAP water supplies, cost-sharing of CAP construction and water delivery systems, amendment of the 1982 settlement agreement with the Tohono O'odham Nation, mitigation measures necessitated by sustained drought conditions, and equitable apportionment of drought shortages.

While this bill reflects agreements reached on a host of issues after an intensive and extended effort by the numerous parties involved, it is important to emphasize that this bill does not represent the final settlement. All parties recognize that a very limited number of the provisions of this bill may be modified as the negotiations continue. We fully expect that the legislative process will culminate with a final agreement early in the next congressional session.

Mr. President, we introduce this bill today as an expression of our strong support of the various parties to successfully achieve conclusion to this process. The Arizona Water Settlements Act will be a historic accomplishment that will benefit all citizens of Arizona, the tribal communities, and the United States.

One hour.

Actually, I object. I will not take a time agreement at this time. I will agree. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. President, usually I begin my diatribes on the appropriations bill by lifting up the appropriations bill for all to see; one, it hasn't been delivered and, two, I note by the

size of the existing copy down by the desk of the manager that it would be quite a task to pick up this year's appropriations bill. At my advanced age, I might be in danger of sustaining a hernia. But I still think that this probably is--if I may borrow a phrase from one of our longtime adversaries--the mother of all appropriations bills. It is some 5,000 pages.

I can safely say that I have not read it. My staff has been feverishly going through certain parts of it, each being parceled out. Clearly, we have a mammoth conference report on this omnibus appropriations legislation, which nobody has been able to review, examine, and debate. I say that not without sympathy for the Senator from Alaska, who is faced with a situation where negotiations--in fact, they are going on almost as we speak, or are being completed as we speak. Certainly, the reasons for the delay--some 4 months of delay-- was not under his control. But I want to discuss this very briefly in context.

The context that we are looking at with this legislation is a huge looming deficit that is in front of us and growing in size almost as far as the eye can see. The eye used to be able to see for 10 years. Now we have changed the procedures where the eye can only see for 5 years. But only a short time ago, we were awash in huge surpluses. I will never forget when Alan Greenspan testified before Congress in favor of the 2001 tax cuts because we wanted to make sure we didn't spend down the debt too fast. We didn't want to spend down that debt too quickly because that would have some bad effects on our economy.

Well, we don't have to worry about spending the debt down too quickly now. In 2001, we had a $127 billion surplus. We are living in a different time now. The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast a larger than expected deficit of $199 billion for this year; and last week, with the result of the President's budget for 2004, the OMB projected record deficits of $304 billion this year and $307 billion next year.

I have, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, seen enough of our needs for security and safety at our airports, railway stations, ports, all over America, to tell you that we have very large expenditures ahead of us. Those expenditures are justified when we are talking about the security of this Nation. The funding for the Transportation Security Administration was justified. I am proud that we not only passed the legislation, but we funded that enormous effort to ensure the security of our airports, which is still not complete. But the fact is, we will soon run out of borrowing authority and might have to look to other sources of funding, such as the Social Security trust fund, in the absence of a legislated increase in the debt ceiling.

There are a lot of words that are not used anymore around here, but the one that has completely and totally disappeared is the good old ``lockbox.'' I wonder what happened to the good old lockbox. That was the one we were going to put Americans' payments into Social Security into and we were never going to touch it again.

Not only is our economy in distress, we are also one step closer to war. There are threats to national security that must be disposed of. Yet this appropriations bill, in my view, has not changed since last year. In fact, it is predictably about 11 times worse. The amounts associated with each earmark may not seem extravagant, but taken together they represent an incredible diversion away from Federal programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based process.

I have two problems with this process. One, of course, is the appropriating of moneys that are really unnecessary and unauthorized and wasteful, very wasteful, but also in this legislation are many fundamental policy changes and, of course, I object, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, that it didn't go through my committee. But I object to it even more when we have not had the open debate and votes taken on matters that have national implications that are fundamental policy decisions.

Let's go back to some of the necessary earmarks: First, $280,000 for asparagus technology and production in Washington; $220,000 to research future foods in Illinois--only in Illinois, of course.

My colleagues may note, as usual, the need for these earmarks are nearly always geographically based.

Next is $700,000 for the Midwest poultry consortium in Iowa; $250,000 for research on the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs. I always wondered what kind of experiments these are. One of our all-time favorites, made famous a number of years ago, is money that was spent to study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cows. One always wondered about the testing procedures used to determine those effects on the ozone layer. This is another one that intrigues the observer. Regarding the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs, of course, one's imagination can be stimulated by the prospect of the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs.

Then we have $600,000 for tristate joint peanut research in Alabama; $500,000 for Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois Corn Growers Association for a pilot program to develop ``production protocols.''

Again, I have to sometimes display my ignorance. I didn't know that in order to grow corn, there was a particular requirement for a protocol regarding production.

I see that the Senator from Iowa just came on the floor. He may be able to illuminate me on the production protocols associated with corn growing. But whether he can or not, there will be $500,000 being split up between his State, Missouri, and Illinois to their corn growers associations. But this won't be an overall production protocol; this is only a pilot program. So I am sure there will be a great deal of additional money coming once we develop the pilot program for production protocols of growing corn.

Next is $50,000 to combat ``feral hogs'' in Missouri. You know, somewhere I had a little depiction of feral hogs. I did not know that they were a threat to civilization as we know it, or at least enough to require $50,000 to combat feral hogs. Sometimes one would get the impression that perhaps the people in Illinois could fund their own combat scenario with feral hogs. Nonetheless, we will be coming in with 50 grand to combat those feral hogs, which I am sure are a serious scourge.

There is $500,000 to continue hybrid poplar research in Wisconsin. I am sure next year we will have a continued program to develop production protocols for growing corn; $2 million for the biomass gasification research facility in Birmingham, AL. Again, I look forward to seeing what that is all about.

And then, staying right on this important mission of gasification, we have another $500,000 for the gasification of switchgrass in Iowa. Perhaps switchgrass can be part of the production protocol of corn. But one doesn't know; $1 million for the National Agricultural Based Industrial Lubricant Center; $10 million to develop a high-speed data transmission between the Library of Congress and education facilities, libraries, and networks serving western North Carolina. I did not know there was a special need in the western part of North Carolina, as there might have been for other parts of the country. But we will spend $10 million to do that; $500,000 to be split between the Alexandria Museum of Art and the New Orleans Museum of Art for activities relating to the celebration of the Louisiana Purchase bicentennial celebration; $200,000 for the replacement of Minton tile in the Capitol complex; $1 million for a company called Culpepper Glass in Warrenton, VA, that produces glass display cases for the Library of Congress. I assume, of course, there is no other company that could produce glass display cases for the Library of Congress. That is why the Culpepper Glass Company in Warrenton, VA, had to be designated in this legislation; $3 million for an award to the National Technology Transfer Center for a coal slurry impoundment pilot project in southern West Virginia; $1 million for an automated nursery project in Mississippi; $500,000 for Vermillion Community College in Ely, MN, for the development of a professional forest harvester program.

Mr. President, if my colleagues will indulge me, I have to go back to my favorite from last time for just a moment. I know the hour is late, but this is too much. We were able to keep, through very serious contemplation and discussion among conferees, $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study in

Montana; $1 million will be spent to sample the DNA of bears in Montana.

Because these appropriations are never discussed with nonmembers of the Appropriations Committee, one can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA.

Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you. We have to get the DNA. The DNA doesn't fit, you got to acquit, if I might.

I think it is important to appreciate that this $1 million for a DNA bear sampling study could solve a lot of crime in Montana. It is a pretty high-crime area. It seems to me that is, indeed, a very worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars.

While we are at it, I want to jump out of line here a second: $202,500 to the National Peanut Festival Fairgrounds for the construction of the National Peanut Festival Agriculture Arena in Dothan, AL. I was interested in the National Peanut Festival. I did not see it much on television or hear much about it. So I went to the Web site, and I think you will be comforted to know we are spending this $202,500 for the 9-day celebration of the peanut harvest, which includes a variety of competitions, including recipe contests, beauty pageants, and tennis tournaments. Included for your viewing pleasure on this Web site is a very interesting picture. I am sorry my colleagues cannot see it, but I would be willing to provide them with copies, but there are three individuals standing by a contraption that I have not seen before, and it says farmers demonstrate antique peanut harvesting equipment at Pioneer Peanut Days. Again, it seems to me that is a worthwhile investment of $202,500.

I have also one more that is kind of interesting: $900,000 for the Show-me Aquatic Center for Development; $900,000 for the Show-me Aquatic Center in Missouri. We found a picture of it. It says: ``Please Touch Me Museum, 210 North 21st Street, Philadelphia''--this is the 270,000 Please Touch Me Museum, I apologize. That is for kids and grownups. Of course, I had that confused with the very important facility that is in Missouri. I certainly would not want to confuse the different States.

One of the more remarkable aspects of this bill is in the HUD section, under EDI. There are 885 individual earmarks. Some of them are very interesting. Of course, there is $202,500 to continue the rehabilitation of the former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, AK. I am reluctant to ask the Senator from Alaska how much that continuing rehabilitation is going to cost us overall.

We have a lot of important construction: $45,000 for the city of Tuscumbia, AL, for construction of facilities associated with the Helen Keller Festival; $90,000 for the city of Prattville, AL, for the Boys and Girls Club of Prattville.

I mentioned the peanut festival. Here are a couple new ones: $810,000 for the city of St. Louis, MO, for lighting sidewalks, curb, and street furniture along Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street. It must be a fairly serious situation there that we need to spend $810,000 down there on Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street in St. Louis.

I mentioned the Show-Me Aquatic Center in Missouri; $105,000 for the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute in Columbia, MO, to analyze commercial shipping alternatives; $90,000 to the city of Natchez, MS, for a feasibility study to develop a slack water port. That is just for a feasibility study; $135,000 to the Culinary and Hospitality Academy Center of Las Vegas, NV, for construction related to the expansion of an education training center. For those of you who have not visited Las Vegas lately, I can tell you it is a very depressed and deprived area, and I can certainly understand why the Culinary and Hospitality Academy Center would need $135,000. I thought they could use some of mine.

For the arts, we have $162,000 for facilities renovations and improvements for the Woolworth Theater in Glens Falls, NY; $162,000 for the Catskill Mountain Foundation in Hunter, NY, for reconstruction of the Tannersville Theater; $180,000 to the Bethel Performing Arts Center in Bethel, NY, for construction of a performing arts facility; $225,000 to the village of East Syracuse, NY for the renovation of the Hanlan pool; $270,000 to Garth Fagan Dance Studio in Rochester, NY, for construction of a new theater for the Garth Fagan Dance Studio; $121,500 to the Bedford County Agricultural Society in Pennsylvania for facilities improvements at the Bedford County Fairground; $202,000 to the New York Agricultural Society for facilities improvements to the New York Expo Center Arena and Livestock Expedition Hall, and I mentioned the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, PA.; $810,000 to the City of Fort Worth, TX--another impoverished area--for waterfront facilities construction for the Trinity River Basin Project; $180,000 to the Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum for facilities expansion; $216,000 to the Virginia Living Museum in Newport News, and the list goes on.

There is a certain common thread one will find throughout these 885 projects. I am sorry I did not have time to total it up, but it would have to be in the tens of millions of dollars. There is one common thread. About 95 percent of these projects that are earmarked belong to the States that are represented by members of the Appropriations Committee.

I joke a lot about this, and I will continue to do so, but that is not right. That is not the right thing to do.

I regret the conferees choose to adopt a special interest provision for one foreign cruise ship company at the expense of all other companies. The last time Congress meddled in this area with hollow promises of spurring the American shipbuilding industry, it ended up costing the American taxpayers $185 million in loan guarantees. It was one of the most egregious I have seen of egregious things to take the money from a billionaire that--excuse me. We took no money from the billionaire who runs river boat casinos and who tried to build two ships in Pascagoula, MS, which every expert knows is not possible. The project failed and the American taxpayer was on the hook for $185 million.

Not satisfied with costing the American taxpayer $185 million, a Senator from Hawaii put into this bill a requirement that grants a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines the exclusive right to operate three large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This will be permitted notwithstanding the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires vessels transporting passengers between ports in the U.S. to be U.S.-owned, U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed.

I am not a fan of those requirements. But why in the world do we make exception for a law in an appropriations bill when you know what the result is going to be? By granting exclusive rights to one cruise line, there will be no competition and the people who want to cruise Hawaii will pay much higher prices than for a commensurate cruise that people would take out of the East Coast.

I do not know if the Presiding Officer has ever been to Miami, but there are all kinds of ships cruising out of Miami, going all different places, for all different purposes, at very low cost. That is because they are all competing against each other.

The Senator from Hawaii puts in a violation of law, and an exclusivity which is going to cost people who want to cruise the Hawaiian Islands an enormously greater amount of money. Why? That is crazy. I would have thought the Senator from Hawaii, after costing the taxpayers $185 million because of a provision he put in an appropriations bill--it never went through my committee which has oversight of it. It was never mentioned in my committee--after costing the taxpayers $185 million, the Senator from Hawaii then pulls this one. I am angry about it, and I will continue to be angry about it because the citizens of my State of Arizona would like to cruise the Hawaiian Islands and they would like to do it at the cheapest possible cost. When there is no competition, there is not low cost.

There has been no analysis of granting this exclusive exemption from the Passenger Vessel Services Act to the ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' owned by a Malaysian company. Nor have the committees of jurisdiction had an opportunity to consider the proposal.

I tell the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, we are going to have a hearing on this issue, we are going to have a GAO investigation, and we are going to find out why they lost $185 million because of a provision put into this bill. We are also going to get an estimate of how much this exclusivity is going to cost my citizens who want to go on a cruise at the least possible cost. I will not quit on this issue. It is wrong, and it is the wrong way to treat this process. We will have hearings in the Commerce Committee, and we will expose this for what it is--disgraceful.

There are numerous other provisions in this conference report that circumvent the clear jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. It incorporates almost wholesale a bill passed last year by the House of Representatives regarding air traffic control towers. The provision expands on the class of air traffic control towers that is eligible for Federal money. I am all for aviation safety and it may be a good provision. I am troubled by several aspects of it.

First, the provision does not make new towers eligible for reimbursement. It makes eligible towers that were built beginning in 1996, over 7 years ago. At least the provision passed last year by the House provided that an airport tower would be eligible for a grant under this program only if the Secretary certified that the selection of the tower for eligibility was based on objective criteria giving no weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference report, or statutory designation.

I wish to congratulate my House colleagues because they were concerned about the pork barrel projects practice and tried to insulate this particular program from such behavior. Guess what. That provision that eliminated no objective criteria giving no weight to any congressional committee report, joint explanatory statement of a conference committee, or statutory designation was eliminated. Why would that be eliminated, I wonder?

The conference report also includes a provision and implements a whole new funding scheme for airport security projects. I am very concerned about funding for airport security. This is a reauthorization year for aviation programs and the Senate Commerce Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, has already begun hearings of FAA issues. Yet the appropriators have taken it upon themselves to establish a brand new funding scheme that has never been vetted, discussed, or voted on by the authorizing committee. Some might start to wonder just what the Commerce Committee's role is in policy decisions regarding the programs under its jurisdiction.

This provision authorizes a new $2.5 billion program over 5 years for airport security projects without any discussion that I am aware of. The TSA was not consulted about this provision. It seems the special interest groups who were shopping this provision were the only ones that mattered. If this had gone through the regular legislative process, at least all parties could have been heard.

There are many different ways to fund security projects. This provision may be a good one. It mirrors a similar program set up at the FAA. However, the Department of Transportation Inspector General proposed several other ideas to our committee.

Another provision would allow airports to give airport improvement program money back to the FAA so the agency can hire staff to speed up environmental reviews of airport projects. This is an area in which the Commerce Committee took action last year and will continue to pursue this year. It should not be addressed in an appropriations bill.

I commend the conferees for their attempts to help protect the investment the American taxpayers continue to provide to Amtrak. The conference report, which provides Amtrak $1.05 billion for fiscal year 2003, includes conditions that require the funding to be appropriated on a quarterly basis through formal grant agreements with DOT. The conferees worked to ensure that Amtrak reserved sufficient funds to meet its contractual obligations with State and local subdivisions for commuter and intercity corridor services. Amtrak should not be in a position to shut down commuter operations as it threatened last summer because it does not have sufficient funds to operate its entire network.

The conference committee has slightly reduced Amtrak's appropriation from that provided in the Senate-passed measure, but it has also postponed repayment of Amtrak's $100 million loan from DOT.

The conferees authorized the Secretary of Commerce to award grants and make direct lump sum payments of up to $50 million to support travel to the United States. To carry out this new authority, the appropriators established the United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board and provided $50 million. This tourism board has never been considered by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. Nor did the Department of Commerce have any input on the creation of this new board. Who came up with $50 million--and establish a new bureaucracy? The U.S. Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board, and gives them $50 million.

I am pleased to see the conferees appropriated money for election reform. The conference report on NOAA provides more than $490 million in earmarks, and just for aquatic, not atmospheric programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to go toward 150 earmarks. The administration did not request funding for these programs in the budget, and many programs they did request funding for are underfunded or zero funded.

The conference report appropriated an astounding $100 million for fisheries disasters assistance. Of this amount, $35 million is for direct assistance to the State of Alaska for any person, business, or town that has experienced an economic hardship even remotely related to fishing. This is in addition to the $20 million they are also getting for developing an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Of the remainder, $35 million is for the shrimp industries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic to provide far-reaching assistance for many aspects of these fisheries; $20 million is provided for voluntary capacity reduction programs in the Northeast and west coast fisheries; $5 million is for Hawaiian fishermen affected by fishing area closures and other management rules; and $5 million is for blue crab fisheries affected by low harvests.

The conference report requires the Department of Commerce and Coast Guard to provide coordinated, routine support for fisheries monitoring and enforcement through use of remote-sensing aircraft and communications assets, with particular emphasis on Federal waters seaward to South Carolina and Georgia. Without review by the authorizing committee, we have no basis for knowing why this is a good use of Federal dollars and resources.

The conference report earmarks $10 million to promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries funds to develop an Alaskan seafood marketing program. Ten million is a lot of money to be spending on a marketing program.

As far as the Coast Guard is concerned, managers earmark a total of $83 million of the Coast Guard budget. That earmark is an increase of $10 million over last year, and many of them have obviously never been proposed.

In HUD, as I mentioned, 885 targeted grants.

I also will talk for a minute about the lowly catfish, one of my favorite subjects. We know the lowly catfish has been the subject of a great deal of debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate due to the fact that in another appropriations bill, we changed the name of the catfish that comes from Vietnam to basa. But now the lowly catfish, those that are still named catfish because they are raised in the United States, we are now qualifying catfish for livestock compensation programs. Catfish are cows.

As my colleagues know, the livestock compensation program is a Federal farm program that compensates eligible livestock producers, such as owners of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, goats, or certain breeds of buffalo that have suffered losses or damages as a result of a severe drought. Now it is the catfish.

I often take issue with various farm policies that disproportionately benefit large agribusinesss or farms at the expense of farmers and taxpayers, and

those that compromise American agricultural trade commitments. This effort to compensate catfish farmers from a farm program that is intended for livestock stands out. I am certain that catfish proponents will offer a dozen different explanations to justify this provision. In fact, the last time we discussed this, one of my colleagues from Tennessee talked about in his State there are catfish that leave the water and travel in herds, so perhaps that is why we are now calling a catfish a cow. But not even hog, poultry, or horse producers are eligible under the livestock compensation program. Why should catfish then get livestock payments?

We know labeling continues to be a nationally significant agricultural issue. Again, the issue was addressed in the appropriations bill.

The Army Corps of Engineers is, of course, one of the favorite places. Not only are there a lot of earmarks, but there are significant changes in policy or law under the rubric of this appropriations bill. In this legislation, the administration is prevented from proposing or even studying changes to the Army Corps of Engineers civil works program, such as reorganizing aspects of the agency's management structure, without specific direction in an act of Congress. It seems to me that is remarkable micromanaging.

I guess I have taken enough of my colleagues' time at this late hour, and I know we should be voting on this bill and leaving. I point out again, this bill which the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee described as the largest appropriations bill in the history-- and I certainly take his word for it--in my now 17 years of monitoring these things, has the largest number of earmarks by far. I find that wrong for a variety of reasons, but one of them being that we are supposed to be in a war. We are about to ask young men and women to make sacrifices. In fact, some of them in the next few weeks may make the ultimate sacrifice. And here we are, business as usual, business as usual, larding on porkbarrel projects, running up the deficits to historic proportions in some respects. I imagine it is historic as far as the turnaround is concerned, from a $127 billion surplus to a $300 billion deficit. I mind that very much. I think it is wrong. I think it is the wrong signal to send to the American people about our seriousness of addressing the challenges of the war on terror.

But I am also disturbed about the policy changes that are made in appropriations bills which render authorizing committees nearly irrelevant. It is not the right thing to do. There are provisions in this bill--and I will be providing them for the record--of many policy changes that should have required hearings, debate, votes on specific issues. Instead, they are decided by a small group of Senators and House Members rather than all of us being able to exercise not only our privileges but our responsibilities as we determine the policies that affect the future of our citizens in our respective States.

I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Commerce Committee Provisions'' be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

I see the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from West Virginia. I will take just a minute.

I thank the Senator from Alaska for the hard work he and his staff have done. I also hope Members understand that we did not receive this bill until sometime late morning and it is, as the Senator from Alaska pointed out, the largest bill in the history of Congress. I see it sitting to his right. I think it is several thousand pages. I believe, in all candor, in order to review it, my staff would have to stay up all night.

I understand the urgency of voting tonight, but I hope the Senator will indulge me and my staff another hour and a half for us to get through at least a majority of the bill, and then I would be asking for an hour, but I will not use a complete hour to comment on the bill. That way, I hope it can accommodate Members so we could have a vote relatively early this evening.

We are not finished by a long shot reviewing the bill. It is the largest appropriation in the history of this country. At least in my mind, it deserves scrutiny and comment.

I thank the Senator from Alaska. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I first introduced legislation on this issue all the way back in 1992. Then again in 1993, then again in 1994, then again in 1995. In 1999, I drafted legislation that became law--as a compromise measure that paid special compensation pay for severely disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 percent. Here we are in 2003 with an opportunity to finally rectify a problem that has plagued our veterans and to rectify it, once and for all, for all military retirees who have become disabled during their military service.

I know personally the character of Americans who take up arms to defend our Nation's interests and to advance our democratic values. I know of all the battles, all the grim tests of courage and character, that have made a legend of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Forces devotion to duty.

Let me remind this body of the grave sacrifice that our men and women who risk their lives for their country must endure. The United States has exerted military force more than 280 times since the end of World Ward II. We are even now engaged in an epic struggle against a new and hidden enemy that involves the men and women of our armed forces.

Once again our young men and women are defiantly heading into harms way with the understanding that we, as the lawmakers of this great Nation, will ensure they are taken care of as citizens and as veterans for their actions above and beyond the call of duty.

We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to these brave men and women, and for the future men and women who continue to serve in this time of trial.

The existing law as it stands is simply discriminatory and wrong. ``Concurrent receipt'' is, at its core, a fairness issue, and present law simply discriminates against career military people who have been injured or disabled while in conduct of their duties while in defense of this great Nation. Retired veterans are the only group of federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation.

In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes; one for loyal and selfless service to our country. The other for physical or mental `pain and suffering' occurred in that service to country.

The Retired Pay Restoration Act has received strong bipartisan support in Congress for several years.

The Military Coalition, an organization of 33 prominent veterans' and retirees' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other veterans' service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans.

For the brave men and women who have selected to make their career in the U.S. military, they face an unknown risk. If they are injured, they will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks.

It is long overdue for us to redress the unfair practice of requiring disabled military retirees to fund their own disability compensation. Sixty percent is not enough! We need full funding for all military retirees. It is time to show our appreciation to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our great Nation.

Therefore, I am proud to rise today with Mr. Reid, to introduce the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Lincoln, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Snowe, to correct this inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.

I am thankful for the Senate's action to address this important issue today and I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to carry this legislative provision through Conference and final passage.

Madam President, I first introduced legislation on this issue all the way back in 1992. Then again in 1993, then again in 1994, then again in 1995. In 1999, I drafted legislation that became law--as a compromise measure that paid special compensation pay for severely disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 percent. Here we are in 2003 with an opportunity to finally rectify a problem that has plagued our veterans and to rectify it, once and for all, for all military retirees who have become disabled during their military service.

I know personally the character of Americans who take up arms to defend our Nation's interests and to advance our democratic values. I know of all the battles, all the grim tests of courage and character, that have made a legend of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Forces devotion to duty.

Let me remind this body of the grave sacrifice that our men and women who risk their lives for their country must endure. The United States has exerted military force more than 280 times since the end of World Ward II. We are even now engaged in an epic struggle against a new and hidden enemy that involves the men and women of our armed forces.

Once again our young men and women are defiantly heading into harms way with the understanding that we, as the lawmakers of this great Nation, will ensure they are taken care of as citizens and as veterans for their actions above and beyond the call of duty.

We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to these brave men and women, and for the future men and women who continue to serve in this time of trial.

The existing law as it stands is simply discriminatory and wrong. ``Concurrent receipt'' is, at its core, a fairness issue, and present law simply discriminates against career military people who have been injured or disabled while in conduct of their duties while in defense of this great Nation. Retired veterans are the only group of federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation.

In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes; one for loyal and selfless service to our country. The other for physical or mental `pain and suffering' occurred in that service to country.

The Retired Pay Restoration Act has received strong bipartisan support in Congress for several years.

The Military Coalition, an organization of 33 prominent veterans' and retirees' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other veterans' service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans.

For the brave men and women who have selected to make their career in the U.S. military, they face an unknown risk. If they are injured, they will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks.

It is long overdue for us to redress the unfair practice of requiring disabled military retirees to fund their own disability compensation. Sixty percent is not enough! We need full funding for all military retirees. It is time to show our appreciation to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our great Nation.

Therefore, I am proud to rise today with Mr. Reid, to introduce the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003'', along with our colleagues Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Lincoln, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Snowe, to correct this inequity for veterans who have retired from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.

I am thankful for the Senate's action to address this important issue today and I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to carry this legislative provision through Conference and final passage.

Madam President, after leading the U.S. congressional delegation to the Munich Conference on Security Policy last weekend, Senator Lieberman and I introduced this resolution to thank 18 Europeans for standing with us in demanding that Security Council resolutions against Iraq be enforced. Contrary to what you may read in the press, and despite shrill objections from Paris and Berlin, most European governments believe Iraq must be held to account for its defiance of Security Council Resolution 1441. France and Germany are isolated within Europe in their approach to enforcing, or in their case failing to enforce, Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Recent actions by Paris and Berlin in the most important international fora--the Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, and the European Union--raise serious doubts among nations on both sides of the Atlantic about their commitment to multilateral diplomacy and cause real damage to those institutions.

The French and German objection, for reasons of calculated self- interest--a very flawed calculation, I fear--to a routine request to the North Atlantic Council to upgrade Turkey's defenses

against the military threat from Iraq was a terrible injury to an Alliance that has served their broader interests well. For over three weeks, the United States, with fourteen of our eighteen European allies in the North Atlantic Council, has supported this necessary action, but has confronted a new unilateralism conceived in Paris and Berlin, a unilateralism that exposed the sneering in those capitals about the impulsive cowboy in the White House for the vacuous posturing and obvious misdirection it is.

Whatever NATO decides, Franco-German unilateralism will have a lasting impact on trans-Atlantic security calculations. If this minority French-German obstruction is not overcome, France and Germany will have to answer to those who argue that Iraq could be to NATO what Abyssinia was to the League of Nations.

The United Nations Security Council risks that same fate should it fail to hold Iraq accountable for its defiance. Patient American and British diplomacy at the U.N. delivered a unanimous vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441. France played a key role in negotiating the resolution and knew what they were voting for, Germany was fully aware of the debate as it prepared to assume the Council presidency in January. Americans, and many Europeans, were therefore astonished when France and Germany announced in advance of further consideration of the problem of Iraq that under no circumstances would they support enforcing the resolution's terms against Iraq.

The behavior of France and Germany has set back European unity and created a divided front that makes Iraq's peaceful disarmament less likely. Nations across Europe that have recently expressed a different view of multilateral obligations, including some of our oldest allies and our newest friends, expose the myth that France and Germany speak for Europe.

The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer. Most European governments support the Security Council's clear mandate to require Iraq's full disarmament and do not shrink from the grave responsibilities such a commitment entails. Most European government understand clearly that if the Security Council fails to enforce its demands of Iraq, the Council risks impotence and irrelevance. In short, most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values.

As the foreign ministers of Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia have declared, ``the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.''

As the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Portugal have written, ``Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. . . . [T]he Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.''

We thank this European majority for standing with us.

I ask unanimous consent that two pieces of supporting material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, there is a greater awareness of the precarious financial condition confronting our Nation's Social Security system. Unfortunately, partisanship has controlled the debate on reform, polarizing and paralyzing Congress, while the fate of Social Security has become more grim and the consequent need for reform has become more urgent.

It is now time for us to come together to reform and revitalize this system, so that Social Security will continue to benefit both the seniors of today and tomorrow. As elected officials, we have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised, without unfairly burdening the workers of today.

American workers deserve to know the true financial status of the Social Security program. Each individual should have the right to honest information, including the real value of their personal retirement benefits. Most Americans have little knowledge of the true financial status of Social Security because the current system does not provide them with practical, easy to understand information.

Today, Senator Lindsey Graham and I are introducing a bill that will require the inclusion of that practical information in annual Social Security statements sent to all taxpaying Americans. These statements will include straight forward information regarding the average rate of return workers can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the amount of taxes an individual pays into the program, the amount Social Security receives in payroll, how much revenue is needed to give promised benefits to seniors, and the date when the program will no longer have sufficient funds to pay promised benefits. It is only fair and just to provide everyone with the true facts about how much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be on their contributions.

We must talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the Nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, today, there is a greater awareness of the precarious financial condition confronting our Nation's Social Security system. Unfortunately, partisanship has controlled the debate on reform, polarizing and paralyzing Congress, while the fate of Social Security has become more grim and the consequent need for reform has become more urgent.

It is now time for us to come together to reform and revitalize this system, so that Social Security will continue to benefit both the seniors of today and tomorrow. As elected officials, we have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised, without unfairly burdening the workers of today.

American workers deserve to know the true financial status of the Social Security program. Each individual should have the right to honest information, including the real value of their personal retirement benefits. Most Americans have little knowledge of the true financial status of Social Security because the current system does not provide them with practical, easy to understand information.

Today, Senator Lindsey Graham and I are introducing a bill that will require the inclusion of that practical information in annual Social Security statements sent to all taxpaying Americans. These statements will include straight forward information regarding the average rate of return workers can expect to receive from Social Security as compared to the amount of taxes an individual pays into the program, the amount Social Security receives in payroll, how much revenue is needed to give promised benefits to seniors, and the date when the program will no longer have sufficient funds to pay promised benefits. It is only fair and just to provide everyone with the true facts about how much they will pay in payroll taxes and what the limited return will be on their contributions.

We must talk straight to Americans about Social Security and begin working together in a bipartisan fashion to make the necessary changes to strengthen and save the Nation's retirement program for the seniors of today and tomorrow.

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