Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues the appointment of Heather Bolejack to the position of executive director of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, CJI. I am pleased that Governor Mitch Daniels has nominated her to this important position, and I am confident that she will serve my home State of Indiana with distinction.

A product of Indianapolis, Heather graduated with high honors including being named a Fund for Hoosier Excellence Lugar Scholar, an honor bestowed upon the top minority students in Indiana. Heather attended Butler University and graduated with a degree in Spanish and journalism. She then went on to earn a law degree from the Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, where she received the Zazas Award, a full academic merit based scholarship. Heather served as General Corporate Council for McFadden Solutions Group, a law clerk and associate for Bingham McHale, and since 2004 has worked as a litigation associate at Ice Miller, an Indianapolis law firm, where she concentrated on practicing in the areas of drug and medical devices, as well as insurance coverage. I am pleased that she is not only a member of the 2004-2005 Richard G. Lugar Excellence in Public Service Class, but also a board member of the Fund for Hoosier Excellence.

I am proud that Heather has taken this opportunity to heed the call of public service in this tremendously significant capacity. I join her family, friends, and colleagues in acknowledging this noteworthy achievement.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the North American Cooperative Security Act, NACSA. The purpose of this bill is to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico by providing a framework for better management, communication and coordination between the Governments of North America. To advance these goals, this bill would: Improve procedures for exchanging relevant security information with Mexico and Canada; improve our military-to- military relations with Mexico; improve the security of Mexico's southern border; establish a database to track the movement of members of Central American gangs between the United States, Mexico, and Central American countries; require U.S. government agencies to develop a strategy for achieving an agreement with the Mexican government on joint measures to impede the ability of third country nationals from using Mexico as a transit corridor for unauthorized entry into the United States.

Our Nation is inextricably intertwined with Mexico and Canada historically, culturally, and commercially. The flow of goods and people across our borders helps drive our economy and strengthen our culture. The Department of Transportation reports that goods worth more than $633 billion crossed our land borders in 2004. According to the Census Bureau more than 26 million of the 39 million individuals of Hispanic-origin who are legal residents in the United States are of Mexican background.

But our land borders also serve as a conduit for illegal immigration, drugs, and other illicit items. Given the threat of international terrorism, there is great concern that our land borders could also serve as a channel for international terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

The threat of terrorist penetration is particularly acute along our southern border. In 2004, fewer than 10,000 inividuals were apprehended entering the U.S. illegally through our 5,000 mile land border with Canada. This compared with the more than 1.1 million that were apprehended while trying to cross our 2,000 mile border with Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security reports that about 996,000 of these individuals were Mexicans crossing the border for economic or family reasons.

The Homeland Security Department refers to the rest as ``other than Mexicans,''--or ``OTMs.'' Of the approximately 100,000 OTMs apprehended, 3,000 to 4,000 were from so-called ``countries of interest'' like Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, which have produced or been associated with terrorist cells.

A few of the individuals who have been apprehended at our southern border were known to have connections to terrorists or were entering the U.S. under highly suspicious circumstances. For example, one Lebanese national, who had paid a smuggler to transport him across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001, was recently convicted of holding a fundraiser in his Michigan home for the Hizbollah terrorist group.

Last July, a Pakistani woman swam across the Rio Grande River from Mexico to Texas. She was detained when she tried to board a plane to New York with $6,000 in cash and a severely altered South African passport. Her husband's name was found to be on a terrorism watch list. She was convicted on immigration charges and deported in December 2004.

Since September 11, 2001, progress has been made in deterring cross- border threats, while maintaining the efficient movement of people and cargo across North America. The United States signed ``Smart Border'' agreements with Canada and Mexico, in December 2001 and March 2002, respectively. These agreements seek to improve pre-screening of immigrants, refugees, and cargo. They include new documentation requirements and provisions for adding inspectors and updating border security technologies. We also have established Integrated Border Enforcement Teams to coordinate law enforcement efforts with Canada.

Additional initiatives are included in the Presidents' Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Agreement announced on March 23, 2005, at the North American Summit meeting in Texas. But, additional work lies ahead. We must sustain attention and accountability at home for enhancing our Continental security, and continue to press our neighbors for improved cooperation in combating security threats.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the North American Cooperative Security Act, NACSA. The purpose of this bill is to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico by providing a framework for better management, communication and coordination between the Governments of North America. To advance these goals, this bill would: Improve procedures for exchanging relevant security information with Mexico and Canada; improve our military-to- military relations with Mexico; improve the security of Mexico's southern border; establish a database to track the movement of members of Central American gangs between the United States, Mexico, and Central American countries; require U.S. government agencies to develop a strategy for achieving an agreement with the Mexican government on joint measures to impede the ability of third country nationals from using Mexico as a transit corridor for unauthorized entry into the United States.

Our Nation is inextricably intertwined with Mexico and Canada historically, culturally, and commercially. The flow of goods and people across our borders helps drive our economy and strengthen our culture. The Department of Transportation reports that goods worth more than $633 billion crossed our land borders in 2004. According to the Census Bureau more than 26 million of the 39 million individuals of Hispanic-origin who are legal residents in the United States are of Mexican background.

But our land borders also serve as a conduit for illegal immigration, drugs, and other illicit items. Given the threat of international terrorism, there is great concern that our land borders could also serve as a channel for international terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

The threat of terrorist penetration is particularly acute along our southern border. In 2004, fewer than 10,000 inividuals were apprehended entering the U.S. illegally through our 5,000 mile land border with Canada. This compared with the more than 1.1 million that were apprehended while trying to cross our 2,000 mile border with Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security reports that about 996,000 of these individuals were Mexicans crossing the border for economic or family reasons.

The Homeland Security Department refers to the rest as ``other than Mexicans,''--or ``OTMs.'' Of the approximately 100,000 OTMs apprehended, 3,000 to 4,000 were from so-called ``countries of interest'' like Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, which have produced or been associated with terrorist cells.

A few of the individuals who have been apprehended at our southern border were known to have connections to terrorists or were entering the U.S. under highly suspicious circumstances. For example, one Lebanese national, who had paid a smuggler to transport him across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001, was recently convicted of holding a fundraiser in his Michigan home for the Hizbollah terrorist group.

Last July, a Pakistani woman swam across the Rio Grande River from Mexico to Texas. She was detained when she tried to board a plane to New York with $6,000 in cash and a severely altered South African passport. Her husband's name was found to be on a terrorism watch list. She was convicted on immigration charges and deported in December 2004.

Since September 11, 2001, progress has been made in deterring cross- border threats, while maintaining the efficient movement of people and cargo across North America. The United States signed ``Smart Border'' agreements with Canada and Mexico, in December 2001 and March 2002, respectively. These agreements seek to improve pre-screening of immigrants, refugees, and cargo. They include new documentation requirements and provisions for adding inspectors and updating border security technologies. We also have established Integrated Border Enforcement Teams to coordinate law enforcement efforts with Canada.

Additional initiatives are included in the Presidents' Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Agreement announced on March 23, 2005, at the North American Summit meeting in Texas. But, additional work lies ahead. We must sustain attention and accountability at home for enhancing our Continental security, and continue to press our neighbors for improved cooperation in combating security threats.

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

Mr. President, I inform my colleagues of the retirement of a remarkable figure in my home State of Indiana, Robert H. McKinney.

Bob McKinney has been a friend of mine since my days as Mayor of Indianapolis. During that time he was critical to the passage of Uni- Gov, the massive restructuring of the boundaries and governmental structure of the City of Indianapolis. His bipartisan support of this shared vision was instrumental in allowing for the progress and prosperity of Indianapolis.

Bob's commitment to public service began at an early age. After graduating from the United States Naval Academy Bob, served for 3 years in the Pacific Theater. Additionally, he served two more years in the Pacific during the Korean War. He is a fine product of both the Naval Justice School and the Indiana University School of Law. Bob also holds Honorary Doctorates of Law from Marian College and Butler University.

Supplementing his impressive academic and military careers, Bob remains a consistent voice in public service throughout the State of Indiana and nationally. From 1989 to 1998 he was a trustee of Indiana University, including a term as President of the Board from 1993-1994. He was Chairman of the Board of Advisors of Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis and was formerly a director and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marian College. Additionally, as a trustee of the Hudson Institute, the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, the Indiana University Foundation, and the Sierra Club Foundation, Bob continues to encourage sound public policy.

During the administration of President Carter, he served as Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation, and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. Currently, he is a member of the Presidential Advisory Board for Cuba.

Bob has likewise achieved numerous successes in the private sector. After cofounding one of the largest law firms in Indianapolis, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Bob served as Chairman of The Somerset Group, Inc., a publicly traded financial services company. In 2000, The Somerset Group merged into the First Indiana Corporation, a publicly traded bank holding company that operates First Indiana Bank, the largest bank based in Indianapolis. Now, Bob is preparing to turn those duties over to his able daughter, Marni McKinney.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to call to the attention of my colleagues the extraordinary accomplishments of Bob McKinney. I admire his idealism and sustained energy and I join his wife, Arlene, his five children and five grandchildren, in wishing him every continuing success as he enters this new chapter of his life.

Mr. President, this resolution urges the United States to increase its efforts to ensure democratic reform in the Kyrgyz Republic.

The Kyrgyz Republic has held two rounds of parliamentary elections, the first on February 27 the second on March 13. While both election rounds showed progress toward the goal of a free, fair, and transparent election process, the elections fell short of the Kyrgyz Republic's Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's OSCE and international commitments to fully meet the accepted criteria for democratic elections.

Violations included instances of vote buying, questionable disqualification of candidates and interference with the media.

Inspired by the recent revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, the people of the Kyrgyz Republic rose against their corrupt government to demand respect for their democratic rights. Nationwide demonstrations sparked by the flawed parliamentary elections led to the departure of President Askar Akayev on March 22. The opposition moved quickly to consolidate control and established an interim government. On April 4, President Akayev officially resigned. But the situation remains fluid. The outcome in the Kyrgyz Republic is critically important for its future, and for people living in the Central Asia region, who hope for a democratic future.

The United States and the Kyrgyz Republic have formed a close relationship since it declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The United States has provided humanitarian assistance, nonlethal military assistance, and assistance to support economic and political reforms. The Kyrgyz Republic also hosts a U.S. military base that provides crucial support to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

However, while the Kyrgyz Republic has advanced quickly in the area of democratic reform since 1991, it has experienced setbacks in recent years. I urge the United States in my resolution to continue its strong support for democratic reform in the Kyrgyz Republic, including respect for the rule of law and human rights.

I also call upon the interim government in the Kyrgyz Republic to move swiftly toward democratic government ratified by the Kyrgyz people by holding free, fair, and transparent presidential elections on July 10, and by ensuring that the new parliament represents the choice of the Kyrgyz people. The United States must provide strong leadership in countries where democracy is still taking root.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. President, I ask Senators to oppose the Biden amendment. I appreciate the perspective of Senators who want to preserve the 27-percent cap, as well as those who want the cap to be reduced to the 25-percent level in accordance with the Helms-Biden legislation.

In offering this amendment, I am attempting to represent the views of those Senators who believe that forthcoming discussions on U.N. reform should include additional consideration of U.S. financial obligations for peacekeeping. This is a reasonable expectation given the reform context at the United Nations. Since our committee marked up this bill, John Bolton has been announced as the President's nominee to be Ambassador to the U.N., and Secretary General Kofi Annan has put forward a sweeping U.N. reform plan.

Clearly, U.N. reform is going to be high on the agenda. The Helms- Biden legislation anticipates that the U.S. share of peacekeeping dues would decline to 25 percent of the world total. This remains a goal of U.S. policy toward the United Nations. I believe we should give the U.S. negotiators the most leverage possible to attain U.S. goals.

It has been suggested that the 27-percent agreement struck subsequent to the Helms-Biden legislation is the best we can do. Many Senators assert this is true, particularly since we are entering a period when substantial reform negotiations will take place at the U.N. But in the coming weeks, Congress will have further opportunities to work with President Bush to craft the most efficient means possible of reducing the U.S. share of peacekeeping assessments.

I believe defeating the Biden amendment at this time will facilitate these consultations and strengthen the hand of our negotiators.

I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 266

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, there has been a good debate on this amendment. It is an important amendment. I just wanted to make the point, however, that we have reached a point in our bill where we are going to have to move expeditiously; therefore, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield to the distinguished Senator.

OK.

Mr. President, the President of the United States has directed deployment of aircraft with capability of transmitting radio and television signals into Cuba. Thanks to the aircraft, plus Radio and TV Marti, they are reaching parts of the island that were previously unable to receive those signals. That is tremendously important.

As oppressive as that regime is, the state exerts extensive censorship. The Cubans are told only what the state wants them to know and are denied the right to obtain accurate information on Cuba and the world. We need to do all we can to open that up.

I appreciate the debate. It has offered avenues of constructive criticism of the program, but the program needs to continue. It is vital to our security and, we believe, the future of the Cuban people.

I renew my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, in a moment I want to ask the Chair to recognize Senators Schumer and Graham for an amendment on Chinese currency. Before I ask the Chair to do that, let me simply indicate that the status of our bill is such that amendments that clearly fall in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee are going to be opposed not only by that committee but by the so-called blue-slip process, which means that our bill might not receive consideration on the floor of the Senate or ultimately on the floor of the House.

So leaving aside the substance of whatever may be the merits of an amendment, we are talking about an existential question for this bill itself as to whether it survives or has the hope of doing so.

For that reason, I just want to advise Senators why, at the end of about 40

minutes of debate, which I hope will be adequate for an exploration by the proponents of what they wish to do, I will be moving to table, to preserve really, this bill, the bill we are on. At that point I will ask the support of the body to table the Schumer-Graham amendment, whatever might be its merits, on the basis of jurisdiction.

We are going to have this problem two or three more times on amendments that have been suggested by Senators. So I make that point now, that will have to be the course of this chairman to preserve at least some hope we will have an authorization bill at all at the end of this process.

Having said all that, I am hopeful the Chair might recognize Senators Schumer and Graham for a presentation of their amendment. And after about 40 minutes, we will come to a conclusion.

Proceed.

Mr. President, as I indicated at the outset of the debate, as we asked recognition of the Senators who have spoken so eloquently on this amendment, the issue before the Senate is the preservation of the authorization bill itself that we are debating. The issue has been often expressed, but let me mention it again, that the Finance Committee claims jurisdiction of this item. They also have indicated, both on the Senate and House sides, that they will prevent passage of the authorization bill for the State Department and foreign assistance if this item and, for that matter, several others that have been included in prospective amendments are adopted as a part of this bill.

I will not debate the merits of the amendment on China. We have had a hearing before our Foreign Relations Committee and delved into what is clearly a very complex and important issue. I do know, however, that even as we had the hearing for our own information and that of the public, we understood the jurisdictional question. We have tried to respect that. Therefore, on this amendment and on others that also are clearly in the jurisdiction of the Finance or of other committees, I feel compelled, for the sake of preserving this bill, to move to table the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

I object.

I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Jersey would they be in agreement that a 15-minute presentation at this point would be possible, and then they would yield to me? I make this request because we have an existential crisis with the bill. Unless we solve it, we will probably not be continuing. This is serious. I understand you have an important colloquy. If it can be contained in 15 minutes, that would be fine.

Yes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as has been mentioned.

Mr. President, work continues among a number of Senators who are deeply interested, as I am, in the resolution and the amendment ahead of us. For the moment it appears we ought to give more time to this discussion. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

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

Mr. President, in a moment I am hopeful the Chair may recognize the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, for 10 minutes in which he will offer an amendment. On our side, we are prepared to accept the amendment. Therefore, we will at least make some progress while the other discussion continues.

Mr. President, as I indicated at the outset, we are prepared on our side to accept the amendment. Therefore, I urge its adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I am advised the distinguished Senator from Illinois has a statement he would like to make at this time. I ask the Chair to allocate 5 minutes to the Senator and then to recognize me following that statement.

I amend my request that after I am recognized, the distinguished Senator from Alabama be recognized.

Mr. President I ask that the Chair now recognize the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I understand he will discuss amendments but not offer them at this time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me respond briefly to the distinguished Senator from New York. The amendment that was offered by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, as I indicated before he was on the floor, we were prepared to accept. We presumed there was not Democratic Party opposition to that; there were not members of the committee on the floor. Senator Dodd is a member of the committee, and, therefore, we acted in good faith, as we have to. We are trying very hard to proceed amendment by amendment, depending upon Senators to be on the floor, to be represented by their party officials and by their staffs. So I am hopeful the distinguished Senator from New York and the Senator from Connecticut may be able to agree on a course of action, but from our standpoint, we believe the amendment was offered and accepted legitimately and in due course.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 6, 2005. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the nomination of Charles F. Conner to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture for the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Regulatory Reform of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on energy and natural resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 6, at 10 a.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of David Garman to be Under Secretary of Energy.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 6, 2005, at 9:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing regarding the following nominations:

Panel I: Stephen Johnson, nominated by the President to be the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Panel II: Luis Luna--nominated by the President to be EPA's Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resource Management; John Paul Woodley, Jr.--nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; Major General Don Riley, United States Army-- nominated by the President to be a Member and President of the Mississippi River Commission; Brigadier General William T. Grisoli, United States Army--nominated by the President to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission; D. Michael Rappoport--nominated by the President to be a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation; and Michael Butler--nominated by the President to be a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation.

The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-562.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland be authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on tactical aviation programs, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on military installation programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will be considering S. 600, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. The Foreign Relations Committee passed this bill on March 3 by a vote of 18-0. This is the third successive year that the Foreign Relations Committee has reported out a comprehensive Foreign Affairs Authorization bill by a unanimous vote. We are pleased to have this opportunity to bring it to the floor for the Senate's consideration. I want to especially thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader for their assistance and support in bringing this measure to the floor.

This legislation gives voice to Senate views on issues touching every continent--from tbe threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to the safety of Americans working in our embassies overseas, to an increased and focused effort to spur economic growth in the poorest countries. It authorizes the executive branch to take important actions on a wide range of issues. And, it authorizes appropriations for our diplomats, our foreign aid workers, and our Peace Corps volunteers, as well as the programs and policies that they manage on behalf of the United States.

These people are our civilian soldiers--they pursue a bold war on terrorism and a noble and far-sighted battle against disease, poverty, and humanitarian disasters. Most work in circumstances where the threat level is severe. American diplomats and aid workers frequently have been targets of terrorism while serving overseas. But they understand the importance of representing the United States, and they go anyway.

At this time in our history we are experiencing a confluence of foreign policy crises that is unparalleled in the post-Cold War era. Our Nation has lived through the September 11 tragedy, and we have responded with a worldwide war against terrorism. We have fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are likely to be engaged in security and reconstruction efforts for years to come. We have been confronted by nuclear proliferation problems in North Korea and Iran that threaten U.S. national security and regional stability. We are continuing efforts to safeguard Russia's massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and to prevent proliferation throughout the world. We have experienced strains in the Atlantic Alliance, even as we have expanded it. We are trying to respond to the AIDS pandemic in Africa, the natural disasters in the Indian Ocean region, and the man-made calamity in Sudan. We are trying to take advantage of openings in the Middle East peace process and spur the advance of democracy in many countries. Emerging powers, including China, India, and Brazil, may soon reconfigure the world economically and politically in ways that we do not yet comprehend.

There is a tendency in the media and sometimes in this body to see diplomatic activities as the rival of military solutions to problems. We have to get beyond this simplistic formulation. We have to understand that our military and our diplomats are both instruments of U.S. national power that depend on one another. They both help shape the international environment and influence the attitudes of governments and peoples. They both gather information and provide expertise that is vital to the war on terrorism. And they both must be unsurpassed in their capabilities, if the United States is going to survive and prosper.

Americans rightly demand that U.S. military capabilities be unrivaled in the world. Should not our diplomatic strength meet the same test? If a greater commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear weapon, or the spiral into chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and hunger, the investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost.

In considering this legislation today, it is important to remember that since the end of the Cold War, the Foreign Affairs Account frequently has suffered

from inadequate funding. The American public generally understands that the United States reduced military spending in the 1990s following the fall of the Soviet Union. Few are aware, however, that this peace dividend spending reduction theme was applied even more unsparingly to our foreign affairs programs. In constant dollars, the foreign affairs budget was cut in six consecutive years from 1992 to 1998. This slide occurred even as the United States sustained the heavy added costs of establishing new missions in the fifteen emergent states of the former Soviet Union. In constant dollars, the cumulative effect was a 26 percent decrease in our foreign affairs programs. As a percentage of GDP, this six-year slide represented a 36 percent cut in foreign affairs programs.

By the beginning of the new millennium, these cuts had taken their toll. The General Accounting Office reported that staffing shortfalls, lack of adequate language skills, and security vulnerabilities plagued many of our diplomatic posts. In 2001 the share of the U.S. budget devoted to the international affairs account stood at a paltry 1.18 percent--barely above its post-World War II low and only about half of its share in the mid-1980s, during the Reagan administration.

Under President Bush, funding for the Foreign Affairs Account has increased substantially. The President has requested increases in each of the last four budgets. In this year's budget, the President has requested a 13 percent increase over last year's appropriated amount for the Foreign Affairs Account--the largest percentage increase of any major account in the budget. This is a tangible demonstration of the President's commitment to diplomatic strength. Congress must now do its part by providing the resources and authorities that the President needs to carry out an effective foreign policy.

The bill before us preserves the funding decisions in the President's request. Inevitably, members will have some differences with the specifics of the President's request. But we should recognize that this bill represents a generous attempt to raise the profile and effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy. Those of us who have advocated funding increases for the 150 Account should take ``Yes'' for an answer. Accordingly, I believe that if amendments are offered to increase funding for a particular program, they should include offsets.

The bill funds the Millennium Challenge Corporation at the President's requested level of $3 billion. Some have argued that the President should have requested $5 billion--the amount he originally had conceived for the corporation's third year of funding. Others have argued that $3 billion is too much for a new venture that is just getting off the ground, and that some of this money should be shifted to other priorities. My own view is that $3 billion is a reasonable amount, given the scope of the program and its potential for spurring democratic reforms overseas. The credibility of the program, which foreign nations are observing closely, would be strengthened if the Senate endorsed the President's funding request. For these reasons, I will oppose amendments that seek to use MCC funds as an offset for other priorities.

This bill contains numerous policy initiatives, most notably the bipartisan Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act, which was developed in the Foreign Relations Committee and included in last year's bill. The bill before the Senate also includes a 10 percent increase in danger pay for State Department employees who serve in dangerous posts overseas, funding for refugee assistance, and provisions designed to improve protections for women, children, and other vulnerable populations in the context of war or disaster.

Since the mid-1980s, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibility to pass an Omnibus Foreign Assistance Act. Several discrete measures, such as the Millennium Challenge Account, the global AIDS bill, the Freedom Support Act, and the Support for Eastern European Democracy Act, have been enacted. But in the absence of a comprehensive authorization, much of the responsibility for providing guidance for foreign assistance policy has fallen to the appropriations committees. Appropriators have kept our foreign assistance programs going, but in many cases, they have had to do so without proper authorization. In some years, the Congress did pass a State Department authorization bill, but that bill only authorizes about 35 percent of the Function 150 Account. To fund the remaining accounts, appropriators frequently had to waive the legal requirement to appropriate funds only following the passage of an authorization bill.

Passing a comprehensive Foreign Affairs authorization bill is good politics, as well as good policy. It is good politics because it underscores the leadership of this Senate at a time when our country is in peril. It is good politics because foreign assistance is an instrument of national power in the war on terrorism. It is good politics because it recognizes that our standard of living, the retirements of our parents, our children's educations, advancements in our health care, and the security of Americans can be undermined by what happens overseas. It recognizes that American prosperity is far more likely to be sustained if we are successful in spreading democracy, stability, and free market principles.

I thank the members of my committee for their hard work during the authorization process. Members on both sides of the aisle devoted many hours and much thought to constructive approaches to a number of very difficult foreign policy questions. Although this is a new bill developed during the last several months, it reflects much work that has been done by the Committee during the previous Congress. Committee hearings during the last 2 years on post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, U.S. policy in the Middle East, developments on the Korean peninsula, relations between India and Pakistan, public diplomacy, foreign assistance, and numerous other topics have been well attended. In fact, no Senate committee held as many hearings or met as often as the Foreign Relations Committee during the last Congress.

I especially thank the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, for his support of this process and his leadership in foreign policy matters. We have agreed on the vast majority of provisions in this bill, and when we have disagreed, we have worked hard to bridge our differences and find bipartisan solutions. We have always shared the common goal of bringing good legislation to the floor for the Senate's judgment.

It has long been my intent that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approach foreign policy problems in a bipartisan spirit. This legislation reflects the committee's success in that regard. Republicans and Democrats have worked together closely to seek consensus, reason together, make compromises and craft excellent legislation. Our committee is united in the belief that passing a comprehensive Foreign Affairs authorization bill will enhance U.S. national security.

I am looking forward to the debate on this bill and the constructive contributions of Members at this important time in our Nation's history.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

I rise to offer an amendment that strikes section 401, a section which establishes a permanent cap of

27.1 percent on the American share of cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The Helms-Biden legislation passed in 1999 anticipated the U.S. share of peacekeeping dues would decline to 25 percent in total. This remains an important goal of the U.S. policy toward the U.N.

This issue has raised strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the perspective of Senators who want to preserve a 27.1- percent cap as well as those who want the cap to be reduced to the 25 percent level in accordance with the Helms-Biden legislation. We would all like to see American financial responsibilities at the United Nations reduced.

We should acknowledge that existing U.S. law sets 25 percent as our target for peacekeeping contributions. I believe we should give the U.S. negotiators the most leverage possible to attain the U.S. goals. Passing a permanent 27.1-percent cap in this bill at this moment might reduce that leverage.

In coming weeks Congress will have further opportunities to work with President Bush to craft the most effective means possible of reducing the U.S. share of peacekeeping assessments. I believe this is an issue on which further consultation with the executive branch is certainly warranted. This is particularly true at a moment when the Secretary General has recently put forward a substantial United Nations reform plan, and the President's nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. is pending before the Senate.

After discussions with the majority leader and other Members, I have come to the conclusion that we will facilitate further consultations on the peacekeeping cap with the administration and improve prospects for passage of the underlying legislation if we strike this provision. Consequently, I am hopeful Senators will join me in passing this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his very thoughtful comments about my work in the Foreign Relations Committee. I thank him for offering this amendment.

Let me point out, as the Senator from Arizona has already, a number of bills attempting to achieve repeal of Jackson-Vanik have been introduced in both Houses. But they have not come to conclusion, and apparently today that will happen.

I am one of the authors of one of those bills, S. 632, which authorizes the extension of permanent normal trade relations treatment with Ukraine. As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, unfortunately Ukraine is still subject to the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which sanctions nations for failure to comply with freedom of emigration requirements. My bill, and I believe Senator McCain's bill, would repeal permanently the application of Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine. As has been mentioned by the distinguished Senator, that bill has been referred to the Finance Committee, which still has it under consideration.

But I would offer this argument. In the post-Cold-War era, Ukraine has demonstrated a commitment to meeting the requirements for the lifting of Jackson-Vanik and, in addition, has expressed a strong desire to abide by free market principles and good governance.

Last November 21, I served as President Bush's personal representative to the runoff election between Prime Minister Yanukovich and Viktor Yushchenko. During that visit, I promoted free and fair election procedures that would strengthen worldwide respect for the legitimacy of the winning candidate. Unfortunately, that was not possible at that time. The Government of Ukraine allowed, or aided and abetted, wholesale fraud and abuse that changed the results of that November 21 election. It is clear that Prime Minister Yanukovich did not win that election.

In response, however, the people of Ukraine rallied in the streets and squares and demanded justice. After tremendous international pressure and mediation, Ukraine repeated the runoff election. It was held on December 26. A newly named Central Election Commission and a new set of election laws led to a much improved process. International monitors concluded the process was generally free and fair. Viktor Yushchenko was inaugurated as President of, Ukraine, and tomorrow he will address a joint session of our Congress.

Extraordinary events have occurred in Ukraine over the last several months since the December 26 election. A free press has revolted against Government intimidation and reasserted itself. An emerging middle class has found its political footing. A new generation has embraced democracy and openness. A society has rebelled against the illegal activities of its Government. It is in our interest to recognize and to protect these advances in Ukraine.

The United States has a long record of cooperation with Ukraine through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act.

Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world with the fall of the Soviet Union. Through the Nunn-Lugar Program, the United States has assisted Ukraine in eliminating this deadly arsenal and joining the nonproliferation treaty as a nonnuclear state.

One of the areas where we can deepen United States-Ukraine relations is bilateral trade. Trade relations between the United States and Ukraine are currently governed by a bilateral trade agreement signed in 1992. There are other economic agreements in place seeking to further facilitate economic cooperation between the United States and Ukraine, including a bilateral investment treaty which was signed in 1996 and a taxation treaty signed in the year 2000. In addition, Ukraine commenced negotiations to become a member of the World Trade Organization in 1993, further demonstrating its commitment to adhere to the free market principles of fair trade.

In light of its adherence to freedom of immigration requirements, democratic principles, compliance with threat reduction, and several agreements on economic cooperation, the products of Ukraine should not be subject to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik.

There are areas in which Ukraine needs to continue to improve. These include market access, protection of intellectual property, and reduction of tariffs. The United States must remain committed to assisting Ukraine in pursuing market economic reforms. The permanent waiver of Jackson-Vanik and establishment of permanent normal trade relations will be the foundation on which further progress in a burgeoning economic partnership can be made.

My colleagues on the Finance Committee have committed to joining me in supporting this important legislation. It is essential that the Finance Committee and the full Senate act promptly to bolster this burgeoning democracy to promote stability in this region. I am most hopeful that in the course of the day, we will take favorable action on this amendment.

For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise for the point of giving information to all Senators about the legislation we have in front of us. As the Chair has observed, several minutes have passed without activity. We have through staff attempted to notify all Senators who might be anticipating offering amendments or action on this bill. This will be an excellent opportunity to do so prior to the time the two party luncheons are held and a recess for that reason is called. We know that following lunch, there will be two important amendments offered, and we welcome those. I would like to proceed to

our debate and votes, with disposition of amendments that are now pending.

I simply mention, Mr. President, that I recognize, as does the Chair, many Senators are under some urgent requirements in terms of scheduling in this particular week, as we mourn the death of Pope John Paul II. Some Senators are contemplating potential travel to the funeral of the Pope. Others have other requirements. So it would be my intent, as we conclude these amendments that are available, to move for final passage of the bill, to conclude activity on this bill today and as early today as possible.

My understanding is a potential debate on the Social Security issue will ensue at some point this evening after we have concluded activities on the authorization bill. So we might make that more readily available and that time more certain. I mention this because for Senators who do have amendments, even if they are not completely formulated, I request they bring those to the floor so that staff on both sides of the aisle can work through those amendments to find an acceptable form. It would be at least our general view of a liberal policy of adopting amendments that enhance the authorization process and do no violence at least to the foreign policy objectives of the United States.

With that in mind, hopefully those listening to the debate will hear our plea, proceed with amendments, and help us with the activities.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send to the desk a group of amendments to S. 600 that have the approval of the managers of the bill. The package has bipartisan support. I intend to ask they be agreed to by unanimous consent as soon as the ranking member has joined me in the Senate.

I have received word that the presence of the ranking member will not be required. Staff on both sides of the aisle have cleared these amendments; therefore, I ask they be agreed to en bloc by unanimous consent.

I simply point out these are amendments that followed the consideration of the bill in the Committee on Foreign Relations and were suggested by the administration. They have been carefully considered over the course of several days, and there has been unanimous consent on the list that was agreed to.

I encourage Senators who have amendments, once again, to come to

the Senate to make their presence known so we can work with them. It would be our hope we could accept most of those amendments or work on modifications so they can be part of the legislation, as has been the case with the package we just agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, in a short while, we hope to have a unanimous consent agreement so that Members will have a roadmap for the remainder of the afternoon. That is not at hand for the moment; therefore, I hope the Chair might recognize the distinguished Senator from California, who will offer an amendment. Informally, we have talked in terms of an hour of debate being the limit, 40 minutes for the Senator from California, 20 minutes for me or others I may designate. We will encapsulate, hopefully, a unanimous consent agreement in due course during the course of this debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I prefer the Senator send it to the desk and our debate commence.

Amendment No. 278

Mr. President, once again the distinguished Senator from California has presented her case, as always, with conviction and with eloquence. She is an able and a remarkable advocate for her position on this very important and controversial issue.

When President Bush restored the so-called Mexico City policy upon coming into office in 2001, he stated his conviction that United States taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or for those who actively promote abortions as a means of family planning.

It should be made clear this does not lessen our country's commitment to strong international family planning programs. Indeed, President Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget requests $425 million for population assistance, the same funding level appropriated during fiscal year 2001, President Clinton's final year in office.

President Bush has confirmed his commitment to maintaining these funding levels for population assistance because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies through voluntary family planning services. This is the policy of our Government today and it is one that President Bush advocates in the future.

I expect we will continue to have debates in the Senate on the Mexico City policy. As the distinguished Senator from California has pointed out, that has been the case for several years. Over the years there have been numerous attempts to reach compromise language that would satisfy all sides on this important issue, but no acceptable accommodation has thus far been found. This is why President Bush has advised us he will veto any legislation that seeks to override the Mexico City policy.

USAID can and does provide the family planning information services in developing countries through many foreign NGOs. The President has determined that such family planning assistance will be provided only to those foreign grantees whose family planning programs are consistent with the policies of this administration. Every

President since 1984 has exercised that right.

As manager of the President's bill, I, along with every other Senator, must take seriously the President's statements that he would veto the legislation if it were presented to him without the Mexico City policy intact. I believe it is highly unlikely that he will change his mind at this point. The President has been very clear and the directives with regard to administration policy on this legislation are also clear.

I will oppose this amendment. I ask other Senators to do so for the reasons I have given.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are looking forward to conclusion of this debate and another debate prior to getting into the voting sequence at about 4:30. May I ask the participants, the distinguished Senator from California and the distinguished Senator from Kansas, could there be agreement that the amendment would come to conclusion in 20 minutes of time and that this be apportioned 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California and 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Kansas? There would be no other speakers and that would conclude the debate. Then we would be able to proceed with an amendment by Senators Craig and Baucus.

Mr. President, I ask that debate be of 20 minutes duration, that the time be under control of the Senator from California and the Senator from Kansas, and that the Senator from California be able to conclude the debate.

That would be correct, no second-degree amendments.

I thank the Chair and the Senators.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators for this debate. A vote will occur on it at a time in the future, probably in sequence with the 4:30 vote.

At this point, I have two points of important business. These are amendments that have been agreed upon.

Amendment No. 279

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment strikes section 207. It was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as containing direct spending that needed an offset. While there is some disagreement between the executive branch and Congressional Budget Office on the scoring, if section 207 were not stricken, the legislation would be subject to a budget point of order. I understand the staff of the Budget Committee and the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have come to an agreement, and this amendment removes the threat to the legislation. We know the State Department considers section 207 important. We will do our best to provide these authorities, but we must do so in a way that is budget neutral.

For this reason, until a way can be found to resolve the scoring difficulties, we ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Schumer, I send an amendment to the desk. This is an amendment that requires that foreign assistance be withheld from foreign countries that owe parking fines in Washington, DC, or New York City. The amount withheld would be 110 percent of the fines.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that adoption of amendment No. 274 be vitiated and the amendment then be withdrawn.

At this juncture, I ask the Chair to recognize the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I would like to raise a question with the distinguished Senator from Montana. Would the Senator and his colleague, Senator Craig, be prepared to enter into an agreement that the amendment should have 36 minutes of consideration; namely, between now and 4:30, with the time equally divided between opponents and proponents, no second-degree amendments?

The request is 36 minutes total for the amendment, 18 minutes per side, that concluding at the time of our voting sequence starting at 4:30.

Yes, with no second degree.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent an amendment numbered 273, previously agreed to, be modified with language that is at the desk.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that following the vote at 4:45 on the resolution regarding Pope John Paul II, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment; provided further that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the votes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I will take the time before the vote to rise in support of the Craig-Baucus amendment. I am a cosponsor of S. 328, the bill on which the amendment is based. I appreciate the views of the Senators on both sides of the Cuban embargo issue. In the Committee on Foreign Relations, concerned Senators have offered constructive ideas on how to approach Cuba with the goal of transforming that island into a democracy, even as Senators disagree on interim policy steps.

My view is within the defined limits of Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, United States businesses and farmers should be able to sell products to Cuba. In the interest of expanding opportunities for U.S. agriculture, 5 years ago Congress enacted this law. It exempts from the trade embargo on Cuba commercial sales of agricultural and medical products and allows only for cash sales. No credit or subsidies to the Cuban Government are allowed.

This law has provided a new market for our farmers and ranchers. The American Farm Bureau has reported that since the passage of the bill, United States farmers have sold approximately $800 million in agricultural products to Cuba. Exports to Cuba have more than doubled since 2002, reaching approximately $400 million in 2004. Growth in the Cuban market has become especially important as the United States agricultural trade surplus has narrowed over the last 2 years.

Recently, the Bush administration issued a clarification to our Cuban export policy which changed the payment terms of cash sales to Cuba. The Treasury Department rule will make it more difficult to sell agricultural products to Cuba.

The amendment would reverse the Treasury rule by returning it to the status quo payment terms. That has worked well since 2001. It also would cut some of the redtape that makes United States producers less competitive in the Cuban market.

Expanding international markets in our hemisphere and the world will have a positive impact on the lives of Americans. All sectors, especially American agricultural, benefit from the opportunity to sell products to other nations that create jobs in the United States. My home state of Indiana is a world leader in agricultural production and manufacturing. If we hope to sustain our economic strength in the 21st century, we must participate in an expanding global economy. We must aggressively pursue opportunities in new markets and we must keep our competitive advantage and sell our products worldwide.

As a Senator, I worked in the Congress to support trade and economic policies that I believe are in the best long-term interests of our Nation. Constricting agricultural sales to Cuba would have little or no effect on the Cuban regime, particularly since the rest of the world does not participate in our embargo. It would, however, limit the ability of our farmers and our ranchers to sell their products abroad.

I urge my colleagues to support the Craig-Baucus amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside.

Mr. President, we have been attempting to arrange for a vote on the Lugar amendment. Senator Biden would like to debate that amendment, as I understand it. It may be that an arrangement can be made for a conclusion of debate tonight and a vote certain tomorrow morning. But for the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden

be recognized in order to offer a substitute amendment to the language proposed to be stricken; provided further that there be 30 minutes equally divided for debate this evening; provided further that at 10 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Biden amendment, with no amendments in order to the Biden amendment prior to the vote.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as the distinguished Senators from Delaware and Maryland pointed out, and certainly Senator Biden was very heavily involved in the Helms-Biden legislation of 1999, that legislation which came after considerable argument in the committee and in the Senate, perhaps in the country, about what our fair share ought to be, the Helms-Biden decision was that the U.S. share of peacekeeping duties would decline to 25 percent of the world total. That still remains the law and important goal of U.S. policy toward the United Nations, at least for many Senators.

Expression has been made tonight that perhaps our Nation ought to be more generous, and that could very well be the result of negotiations with the United Nations, but the intent, at least, of the amendment that I offered earlier in the day would strike section 401, which established a permanent cap of 27.1 percent. Senator Biden's substitute changes that permanent idea to a 2-year cap of 27.1 so that perhaps pragmatically there is some room and time to come to some agreement either up or down from that point.

I simply observe that this issue, long before Senator Helms and Senator Biden reached a bipartisan compromise in 1999, exercised strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate very much the sentiment of the Senators who wish to preserve the 27.1 cap. As I pointed out earlier in the day, I believe that we ought to pay our dues.

Furthermore, I believe the United States has obligations of a humanitarian sort, quite apart from the pragmatic aspects of peacekeeping, which are important. Nevertheless, my hope had been that by in essence setting aside the issue out of this bill that we would give the U.S. negotiators the most leverage possible to obtain whatever our goals and objectives may be. I think there may be some ambivalence as to what those goals are. It may be ambivalence of a generous sort; namely, given all of the problems occurring in the world, we may wish to take on more. On the other hand, I would observe, as certain other Senators have, that the United Nations is in the process now of a great deal of reform thinking.

The Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has suggested very substantial reforms. We are about to have a hearing on the nominee for our country's representative at the United Nations, John Bolton. I am certain many Senators on the committee will question Secretary Bolton on his ideas about reform and how he could be effective in bringing about a stronger United Nations and what the correct presence ought to be and what the correct leadership ought to be. Peacekeeping ought to be a part of that negotiation.

I would further observe that in the coming weeks Congress will have further opportunities to work with President Bush and his administration to craft the most effective means of reducing the U.S. share of assessments or increasing them, as may be our preference. I believe this is an issue in which further consultation with the executive branch is desirable.

For the moment, I appreciate that Senators will continue to have strong feelings about the United Nations generally, as well as our degree of participation financially and otherwise. That has been the nature of several debates over the years, and each time one of our authorization bills comes to the floor, this issue arises in one form or another. Nevertheless, I will oppose the Biden amendment with the recognition that, as a substitute, if it is adopted, it will be language that I hope at least goes to final passage of this legislation.

If the Senator's substitute is not adopted, then he has assured me that by voice vote we will adopt the amendment I offered earlier on and proceed on to other considerations.

I hope the Senate will adopt my point of view because I believe it offers more latitude for our administration and offers, perhaps, a more constructive avenue for reform of the United Nations and perhaps some leverage for both. In any event, I appreciate the sincerity of the debate, the importance of the issue, the recognition of the history of this debate over several years of time, and at least the resolve that tonight is the point at which I think we must make a decision.

I am happy to yield the Senator 2 minutes of my time.

I will conclude at least my portion of the debate by saying I recognize the Senator from Delaware does visit and works carefully with our administration. I appreciate that. I think it is important that America present as united a voice and face to the world as we can. I would just observe, pragmatically, that the administration in my judgment would like to have some latitude on an issue that has divided the Senate as well as the country for some time.

I don't think this is a monumental subject. I think it is one that, clearly, constructive people can resolve. My hope is we can simply strike the peacekeeping issue from the bill so that latitude is available for whatever reform, reconstruction, and debate the administration reformers may wish to have at the U.N. in the coming months.

Having said this, I appreciate Senators staying with this debate. We understand another will be on the way and there will be a short debate on this issue at 10 o'clock or thereabouts tomorrow, and then a vote on that issue before we retire to see the distinguished leader from Ukraine.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on active component, reserve component, and civilian personnel programs, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Charities and Charitable Giving: Proposals for Reform''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,

and Pensions, Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-430.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. on ``Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act.'' The hearing will take place in the Hart Senate Office Building room 216.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 5, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Monitoring CMS' Vital Signs: Implementation of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subommittee on Surface Transportation/Merchant Marine be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 at 10 a.m. on Highway, Motor Carrier, and Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety, and Transportation of Household Goods in SR-253.

I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Gergen and Joseph Bowab, two detailees from the State Department who are serving with the Foreign Relations Committee staff, receive floor privileges during consideration of S. 600.

Mr. President, when the committee report (109-35) to accompany S. 600 was printed, the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate was not yet available. I ask unanimous consent that it now be printed in the Congressional Record. Also, the same report contained a table with a clerical error. I ask unanimous consent that the corrected table be printed in today's Record as well.