Floor Statements

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Idaho such time as he may consume.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on this side to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.

I yield to the distinguished Senator 7\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, how much time remains on the morning business allocation for this side of the aisle?

Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Right.

Under the order, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Doug MacCleery, an employee of the Department of Agriculture who has been detailed to the Agriculture Committee, and Eric Steiner, a fellow on the committee staff, be granted privileges of the floor during today's session.

Mr. President, the Senate has already defeated a similar amendment by a vote of 71 to 24 on July 17. This amendment would cut funding that will help bring our troops home from the region at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated October 16, 2003, to Chairman Stevens from Joseph O'Neill, Deputy Coordinator and Chief Medical Officer, Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senate should reject the amendment. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we have a certain amount of time under the agreement. We will use that time when we choose. I do not intend to use any at this time. If you want to continue to debate your amendment, it is your amendment. I am for the committee bill. I think the committee made the right decision. I am going to say that and cite the provisions of the report underlining the rationale for the bill and the support we are trying to provide the President. So you have the laboring oar, in my view.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To refresh the memory of the Senate, it is good to look at the exact wording of this amendment that was offered by the Senator from North Dakota and others. The amendment provides that:

The President shall direct the head of the Coalition

Provisional Authority in Iraq, in coordination with the

Governing Council of Iraq or a successor governing authority

in Iraq, to establish an Iraq Reconstruction Finance

Authority. The purpose of the Authority shall be to obtain

financing for the reconstruction of the infrastructure in

Iraq by collateralizing the revenue from future sales of oil

extracted in Iraq. The Authority shall obtain financing for

the reconstruction of the infrastructure in Iraq through

(1)(A) issuing securities or other financial instruments;

or

(B) obtaining loans on the open market from private banks

or international financial institutions; and

(2) to the maximum extent possible, securitizing or

collateralizing such securities, instruments, or loans with

the revenue from the future sales of oil extracted in Iraq.

My personal impression from the reading of this amendment is that the $21 billion that is struck from the bill by this provision--because the amendment begins by striking that $21 billion and substituting this provision that I just read. My impression is that this is smoke and mirrors, pure and simple. What the amendment would really do would be to prevent making available to the Coalition Provisional Authority, trying to guarantee the reconstruction of Iraq and the possibility for the Iraqi people to live in peace and security and in an environment where democracy would be possible, self-government probable--that you could do it for nothing. That is what the assumption

is that underlies this amendment. The assumption is that you can do it for nothing. No private bank is going to make a loan in the environment that exists today in Iraq, with the threats to the security of the people who are cooperating in the reconstruction of Iraq, the threats to the Iraqi people who are cooperating with the coalition to reconstruct Iraq--as they are. People are being shot at in the streets. There is an atmosphere where there is a great deal of fear and suspicion.

We have to, if we are to succeed in helping create this new Iraq-- which I applaud the President for trying to do; it will be a contribution to the peace and stability of not only that region but the world, in my opinion. If we want to support the President's efforts, we will vote against this amendment and permit the funds that were approved by the Appropriations Committee when it rejected this amendment in the committee after hearing testimony from an array of witnesses who are familiar with the situation in Iraq. The committee recommended the approval of these funds--the total appropriation asked for by the President--for the military operations, the increase in the equipment, ammunition, other resources that our troops need to protect themselves and to carry out their mission and to bring it to a successful conclusion. Those funds are included in this bill, but also additional funds that are the target of this amendment, which will help in the reconstruction and make it possible to reconstruct the country so that the people of Iraq can take care of themselves in a military sense, with officers involved in police activity, patrolling the streets to help guarantee that those who are engaged in positive, constructive work there in Iraq can do so with security and without fear of their lives.

That is what the bill is for. That is the goal of the mission of our troops, working with the other nations. Some 30 other nations are actively involved with people there, risking their lives trying to help this country rebuild itself from the ravages of the Saddam Hussein regime.

So if we vote for this amendment and if we reject the decision the Appropriations Committee made, we are putting in jeopardy all of the effort and all of the investment that has gone on, all of the risks taken by so many to make this a successful operation to help establish an atmosphere for freedom, democracy, self-government, for an economy that can be successful in Iraq so that we can see our direct support of this new Coalition Provisional Authority and the government that will be formed as a result of its efforts.

I am hopeful we will recognize the fact that we had solid convincing testimony before our committee at the hearings. Ambassador Bremer testified, the Secretaries of State and Defense testified, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Abizaid, in charge of the military operation there, all in support not just of the military aspect, the $80 billion plus for military activity in direct support of our military forces, but the additional funds which are the target of this amendment.

Schools have started throughout Iraq. Hospitals have been reopened throughout Iraq. That will all come to an end. The continuation of the recovery effort and the progress being made will be put in jeopardy if these funds are not approved.

Not only are banks unwilling to make direct loans to this new government under the security situation that now exists, but nobody will securitize or collateralize future revenues from any source, oil or anything else. To assume this oil has a great monetary value right now to anybody is just a false assumption. It is in the ground, right, but it is not being produced. It is not being transported or marketed in sufficient quantities that anyone would be willing to take the risk of making a loan to a provisional authority created at this time in Iraq. It is just not possible to expect that.

Nobody testified before our committee that I can remember saying that would be a good idea. I don't recall a single financial expert coming in to dispute this administration's recommendation that funds be made available to help reconstruct the capacity to produce oil and to get Iraq's economy moving. Nobody suggested an alternative, certainly not this one. I don't recall hearing a witness. Maybe in the time remaining to the Senator from North Dakota he can cite that effort, he can cite that testimony.

We heard political arguments preying on the suspicions of others, preying on the political aspirations of others who may challenge the administration's policies, and we can have that debate, but this is not a good substitute for the provisions that we have in the bill today before the Senate.

We have looked through the administration's request very carefully, and there were some disagreements about specific items. The other body has completed action in its committee on this appropriations request, and there are some differences. We will have an opportunity in conference to look at some of the specific suggestions the House has made, and I think they have made some good ones. We will work together with our House colleagues and counterparts to prepare a conference report that we hope will meet the approval of the Senate, as well as the House, and that the President can sign, and we can move forward.

This is a smoke-and-mirrors amendment, Mr. President, purely and simply. You cannot have it both ways. As I remember, one of my good friends on the other side, after looking at a proposal that we had before us one time, said: This is like smoke and mirrors. In fact, there is so much smoke; you can't even find the mirrors; you can't see the mirrors.

I am not trying to be too cute. I don't want to try to create that impression, but I am very serious in my suggestion that it would be a big mistake if we adopted this amendment. I hope the Senate will reject the amendment. The committee looked very carefully at the amendment when it was offered in our markup session and rejected the amendment.

I am hopeful, as we proceed to a final discussion, that the Senate will look at the testimony we had before our committee, consider carefully the implications of denying these funds to the administration and the fact that it would contribute to a greater degree of instability in that country with a greater degree of risk for our troops who are now there, the civilians who are there from some 30- odd countries trying to be helpful in the reconstruction of this country. It would create a much more dangerous situation, and I don't think we want to be a party to that. That would be a result, unintended of course, that would flow from the adoption of this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, in behalf of the Committee on Appropriations, I present to the Senate a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.

The bill was reported favorably by the committee by a vote of 29 to 0. During 6 hours of deliberation, the committee considered many amendments and rejected most of them, but I am sure we will have the opportunity to reconsider some of these suggested changes on the floor of the Senate.

This bill is requested by the President and is a matter of some urgency. It is an emergency supplemental appropriations bill which should be acted upon without delay, but, of course, with the thoughtful and careful consideration which the subject matter clearly requires.

The President's request has been considered in hearings held by the Appropriations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Banking Committee. During these hearings and through 16 witnesses, the case has been well made that these emergency funds are needed and should be approved.

The funds appropriated by this bill will provide the equipment, fuel, ammunition, and subsistence our troops need as they complete their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill includes military pay, including imminent danger pay and family separation allowance, at the levels authorized in the fiscal year 2003 emergency supplemental for the duration of fiscal year 2004.

We have also provided funding for equipment needed by our troops. Some of the items for which emergency funds are provided are fuel for military vehicles and aircraft, improved humvees, and body armor to better protect our troops.

We have increased the level of funding requested by the President for operation and maintenance funding for the Army and for replenishment of prepositioned war stocks.

This bill includes appropriations to purchase more electrical generators, moneys for mail service, and improvements in troop housing and facilities.

The bill includes $412 million in military construction funding that will provide support facilities for our soldiers in base camps throughout Iraq, as well as urgently needed runways and taxiways to support Air Force operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Armed Forces and the coalition of nations that are involved are making remarkable progress in Iraq. It has been less than 1 year since we gave the President the authority to use force against the Saddam Hussein regime.

During our hearings on this bill, Ambassador Bremer pointed out that the coalition has already opened all of Iraq's 240 hospitals and nearly every health clinic. Almost every university and secondary school in that nation has been reopened, and the Iraqi people have begun to share in providing the security for their own country. Tens of thousands have been trained as police officers or members of the new Iraqi Army.

We are also providing funding to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. This funding will improve electrical, transportation and telecommunications systems, as well as the infrastructure that will enable Iraq to sustain itself without our assistance in the years ahead. But it is essential that we act now to approve these funds. We should act expeditiously on this bill. Our military needs the funding to carry out their missions. The coalition provisional authority needs the support provided by this bill now.

I invite the attention of the Senate to the provisions of the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following statement in explanation of the recommendations of the Committee on Appropriations on the bill, S. 1689, making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and recovery for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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

I ask unanimous consent that Bob Henke, Menda Fife, B.G. Wright, and Bill Simpson of the Appropriations Committee staff have full floor access during the consideration of S. 1689, making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany

Madam President, it is my honor and pleasure to present for the Senate's approval today the conference report on H.R. 2555, the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. As all Senators know, this is an historic occasion. Not only is this the first appropriations bill for the new Department of Homeland Security, but it is also the first of the 13 fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill conference reports to be presented to the Senate.

The conference agreement provides total new budget authority for the new Department of $34.9 billion, including $4.7 billion in advance appropriations for future fiscal years. Of the amount provided for fiscal year 2004, $29.4 billion is for discretionary programs. This is approximately $1 billion more than the level requested by the President. It is also $890 million more than the Senate-passed bill level, due to inclusion in the conference report of $890 million in fiscal year 2004 funding for biodefense countermeasures, so-called BioShield, as recommended in the House bill and the President's recently submitted revised budget request.

To further strengthen the capacity of the Nation's first responders to prepare for and respond to possible terrorist

threats and other emergencies, this conference report provides a total of $4.037 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness. This includes $1.7 billion for the State and local formula-based grant programs; $500 million for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants; $725 million for high-threat, high-density urban area grants; and $750 million for the firefighter assistance grant program which will remain a stand-alone program.

The conference report also includes $180 million for emergency management performance grants which will be managed by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.

The conference report includes a total of $4.5 billion for the Transportation Security Administration. Air cargo security was a priority of the conference committee, as evidenced by the fact that the conference report provides $85 million for air cargo security, which is $55 million higher than the President's request. This funding will allow the Department to enhance its efforts to identify and prohibit the transportation of high-risk cargo on passenger aircraft as well as to advance efforts to research, develop, and procure the most effective and efficient air cargo inspection and screening systems.

Additionally, $8.6 billion is provided for the defense of our borders; $9.1 billion for emergency preparedness and response; $6.8 billion for the Coast Guard; and $1.5 billion for research, analysis, and infrastructure protection.

The conference committee met and completed action on Wednesday of last week, and the conference report was filed yesterday, September 23. It was adopted by the House of Representatives earlier this afternoon by a vote of 417 yeas to 8 nays. Senate passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill to the President for his signature into law before October 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year.

I must acknowledge the assistance and important work by the ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd; also the chairman of the House committee, Mr. Rogers, and the ranking member of the House subcommittee, Mr. Sabo, for their substantial contributions to the development and writing of this bill throughout the year.

We began the year with extensive hearings, reviewing the proposals for the budget of all of the directorates and the individual agencies that are funded in this bill, which includes the Secret Service, the Coast Guard and others. A lot of time has been devoted to understanding the missions and responsibilities of the 22 Federal agencies that were brought under the jurisdiction of the new Department of Homeland Security.

We have also worked closely and consulted with the distinguished Secretary of the Department, Tom Ridge. In my judgment, Secretary Ridge is doing an excellent job of starting up this new Department, understanding the importance of the mission, and helping our country prepare for and prevent terrorist attacks, and prepare for and respond to natural disasters.

The chairmen and ranking members of the full committees have also been very helpful in the development of this legislation. We want to express our appreciation for their good work and their important assistance.

It is with pleasure and honor that I recommend to the Senate the adoption of this conference report.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments made by my good friend and State colleague, who is chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee.

When the FAA bill was on the floor, I offered an amendment to strike that language, which would have reduced resources available to meet the Department of Homeland Security requirements for aviation security. That amendment was adopted without an objection.

Madam President, I would like to briefly explain the order in which these events occurred and the reason for providing the funding prohibition that was included in this conference report.

On June 12 the Senate considered H.R. 2115, the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act reauthorizing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) activities. The FAA reauthorization bill contained language that established a new entitlement for the Transportation Security Administration, an Aviation Security Capital Fund, by earmarking the first $500 million derived from the aviation security service fees which are currently available and relied on as an offset to funding appropriated by Congress for aviation security.

This provision would have directed $500 million used by the Transportation Security Administration to offset the funds appropriated by Congress for aviation security. During consideration of the bill, I offered an amendment with Senator Byrd that would instead ``authorize to be appropriated to the Fund up to $500 million for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2007'' for security improvements at our Nation's airports.

This amendment was adopted by the Senate without objection. However, when the FAA reauthorization bill was reported from conference, the language of that amendment was reversed. The conference agreement included $250 million in direct spending, not subject to appropriation, to be taken from the offsetting fee collections. The concerns raised that the Department of Homeland Security would have to take a cut in its budget for aviation security to offset this new entitlement were not taken into consideration.

There is no argument that our nation's airports need the resources to make structural changes for the safety and security of the traveling public. We have provided funding to address these needs in this conference report. We would not have been able to do this without the inclusion of the provision prohibiting the reduction of offsetting collections.

I ask unanimous consent at this point that a letter to me from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on this subject, dated June 11, be printed in the Record.

I think it is important for us to continue to discuss and consider the appropriate way to deal with these fees and funds that are used for airport security. I assure my friend from Mississippi that I want to consider his suggestions and thoughts, and those of his committee, as we proceed in the administration of these programs. I want to see that the fees are fair for the airlines, fair for passengers, that they achieve the results we all want, which are improved airport security and the security and safety of the traveling public. I hope we can do that and work out an appropriate way of handling this issue in the future.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his kind words, his compliments to me and the members of our staff. He also devoted a great deal of personal attention and effort to the development of this legislation, and his experience and good judgment have been invaluable in the presentation of this conference report to the Senate today.

I know of no other Senators who are seeking to speak on the conference report at this time. Not wanting to leave anyone out of the debate who wants to join in, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have no other Senators who wish to speak on the adoption of the conference report on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We are prepared to proceed to a vote on the conference report.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has acted favorably on this conference report. Before we leave the subject, I have to express my appreciation to the members of the staff of our subcommittee in the Senate on our side of the aisle who worked so hard to make this conference report a reality. This was breaking new ground; there is no precedent for this bill. This is a historic event and a lot of hard work went into writing the bill and guiding it to passage on the floor of the Senate and then working out our differences with the other body.

I am pleased that the Senate has unanimously adopted the conference report. I especially want to express my

appreciation to Rebecca Davies, chief clerk of the subcommittee, and to the other staff members who assisted her in the hard work that was done in furtherance of our efforts to get a bill, including Les Spivey, Rachelle Schroeder, Carol Cribbs, James Hayes, and Josh Manley. They all deserve our thanks and congratulations for a job well done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart outlining the proposed decision time review periods for various categories of pesticide registration applications submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. President, Chairman Domenici knows I have been concerned about DOE's high-level waste cleanup program from its inception. Shortly after our committee concluded action on the bill, the GAO issued a report, entitled, ``Challenges to Achieving Potential Savings in DOE's High-Level Waste Cleanup Program.'' In light of the language in our committee report on the program, the GAO provides a valuable and timely perspective on the nuclear waste clean-up program and confirms many of my concerns, as well as those expressed by our committee during our hearings.

Mr. President, as stated in our committee's report:

The Committee notes with concern the recent notification by

the Department that the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant,

Richland, Washington, construction project baseline would

increase from $4,350,000,000 to $5,781,000,000, an increase

of over $1,400,000,000. The relative lack of outrage over a

baseline change of that magnitude speaks volumes about what

the Congress and public have come to expect from the

Department's clean-up program. The tank waste treatment

project has a long and sordid history that indicates both the

magnitude of the task before the Department, as well as the

Department's historic combination of overly optimistic cost

estimates coupled with consistent project mismanagement. The

Committee notes its concern in the demonstrated pattern of

Departmental officials announcing reform of some aspect of

the clean-up program, only to depart and be replaced by a new

set of officials coming before the Committee to describe

dramatic cost overruns on the project baselines promised by

their predecessors, and claiming no responsibility for the

assumptions underlying those previous commitments.

The Department is now into the second year of entering into

new acceleration and reform agreements consistent with the

policy conclusions of the Secretary's 2001 top-to-bottom

review of the environmental clean-up program. The efforts is

commendable in its success in focusing the Department and its

stakeholders on the importance

of completing clean-up activities decades earlier than

planned. The acceleration agreements entered into at the

various clean-up sites have allowed the Department to book

huge paper out-year savings and acceleration of completion

dates. For example, the Department is claiming savings of

$12,000,000,000 and 20 years at the Savannah River Site,

South Carolina; $30,000,000,000 and 35 years at Hanford,

Washington; $2,000,000,000 and 6 years at Oak Ridge,

Tennessee; and $19,000,000,000 and 35 years at Idaho. In many

cases the savings are based on assumed changes in law, yet-

to-be reformed regulatory environments, contractor savings,

and other highly optimistic assumptions. The Department has

had its successes, most notably Rocky Flats, Colorado, and

should be commended. But even with such highlights, the

weight of the historical record leaves the Committee to

question who will be around in the future (other than the

taxpayers) when these estimated cost savings will inevitably

be revised.

Mr. President, I respect Secretary Roberson's efforts to encourage innovation in the program. Last February, she proposed a new initiative aimed at accelerating cleanup at DOE's sites and focusing on more rapid reduction of the considerable environmental risks. She projects this will cut years off the program and produce $63 billion in savings.

Now that GAO has issued its first report on the acceleration initiative, I hope the chairman will join me in examining their findings and recommendations and identifying actions that we may recommend to the conference.

I thank the chairman and urge that he give special attention to the following GAO recommendation:

DOE's accelerated cleanup initiative should mark the

beginning, not the end, of DOE's efforts to identify other

opportunities to improve the program by accomplishing the

work more quickly, more effectively, or at less cost. As DOE

continues to pursue other management improvements, it should

reassess certain aspects of its current management approach,

including the quality of the analysis underlying key

decisions, the adequacy of its approach to incorporating new

technologies into projects, and the merits of a fast-track

approach to designing and building complex nuclear

facilities. Although the challenges are great, the

opportunities for program improvements are even greater.

Therefore, DOE must continue its efforts to clean up its

high-level waste while demonstrating tangible, measurable

program improvements.

This recommendation underscores my view that DOE should continue to develop and test new technologies, which may have the potential to provide price and schedule savings. Since 1996, our committee has recommended that DOE investigate alternative melting technologies, including the advanced vitrification system, to back-up the baseline system. These recommendations came from the National Academy of Sciences and from DOE's own sponsored studies.

Pursuing backup systems has always made sense. As GAO points out, the risks inherent in the chemical composition of the tanks require a backup approach as insurance. As our committee report explains, ``the weight of the historical record'' often requires us to ask ``who will be around in the future (other than the taxpayers) when these estimated cost savings will inevitably be revised.''

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's response and request his efforts in conference to encourage DOE to evaluate and demonstrate backup technologies that have shown potential to provide cost and schedule savings in the program.

I thank the chairman and appreciate his leadership.

u.s. army corps of engineers' operation and maintenance funding for

noxious weed control at lake sakakawea, garrison dam, nd

Mr. President, I am concerned about the recent efforts by the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission, commonly known as FERC, to make RTOs mandatory. Recently, FERC released a white paper describing their intentions to mandate Regional Transmission Organization participation by utility companies.

A Regional Transmission Organization, or RTO, would act as a third party which sets the rules for power companies about pricing and delivering power in a given region. These RTOs are being formed around the country. There may eventually be one in the South. But, that should not give FERC the authority to strip State Public Utility Commissions of their right to decide whether their states enter into these types of arrangements.

I understand that entering into an RTO may be a good choice for some

companies and Public Utility Commissions to make. I believe that is who should be deciding these issues--not the FERC.

I have a letter from the Mississippi Public Service Commission which I would like to submit for the Record. It clearly states the problems which would beset my state if it were forced into an RTO.

Currently, the FERC is attempting to force utilities to enter into RTOs. There was a federal court case in Atlantic City about this. Some groups point to that case and say that since the utility won its right to withdraw from the RTO, that every other utility can simply file a suit if they are mandated into an RTO. This is not a sensible way to make policy.

We should not equate the right to file a lawsuit with the voluntary ability to join one of these organizations.

I am pleased that an agreement has been reached to amend the Federal Power Act, not just this Energy Bill, to make it clear that FERC cannot mandate participation in an RTO. Unfortunately, this language expires on December 31, 2006. While I wish that there was no expiration to this provision, I am glad that the bill includes language to clarify that when this provision expires the FERC does not have authority to mandate participation into RTOs.

I am hopeful that the FERC will follow Congressional intent and allow states and utilities to decide when and if they wish to enter into an RTO. I thank Senator Domenici and his staff for their work on this provision and I am glad to have a commitment that this provision will be included in the final bill during the energy bill conference.

Mr. President, a year ago, with the support of American agriculture, Congress approved legislation granting trade promotion authority to President George W. Bush. The President has demonstrated a strong commitment to expanding the American economy by actively engaging in an aggressive trade strategy. This strategy includes negotiations with Chile and Singapore, regional efforts with the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement talks, and with the World Trade Organization.

Congress has had unprecedented access and consultation with negotiators, resulting in agreements without hidden compromises or concessions. Public hearings in the Senate and the House have enabled agricultural groups and others who have a stake in these negotiations to make their views and interests known.

Both the Chile and Singapore agreements passed the other body last week by a substantial margin. It is now time for the Senate to approve the agreements.

The U.S./Chile agreement provides important new opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers. Chile is a market of more than 15 million people with an open and progressive economy. Both the European Union and Canada already have free trade agreements with Chile.

Our negotiators were successful in their efforts to eliminate duties on more than three-quarters of American agricultural products within the first 4 years. The agreements also contain a safeguard provision which will help prevent surges in trade volumes. To discourage the use of nontariff barriers, a sanitary and phytosanitary working group will ensure that standards of inspection and food are based on sound science.

The U.S./Singapore agreement has the positive effects of freer and fairer trade and they make this agreement worthy of support as well. Singapore has become our 11th largest trading partner and provides the U.S. services sector with fair and immediate increase in market access.

I urge my colleagues to vote for both the Chile and Singapore free- trade agreements.