John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Missouri for their courtesy, and I will try to be brief in my statement. Nearly 50 years ago, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was enacted into law. As I mentioned during last year's debate, the 1956 act added up to a mere 29 pages--a tiny fraction of this year's highway bill. But what it accomplished truly changed this country. The act created programs that led to the construction of the Interstate Highway System, the largest civil works project ever undertaken by the United States. The 1956 act was the brainchild of President Eisenhower to establish the highway trust fund, financed by taxes on gasoline to fund this massive undertaking. The act required the construction of an interstate highway system using a uniform design that would be safer than most U.S. highways in existence at that time. Mr. President, today we are all the beneficiaries of the foresight of President Eisenhower and of the Congress that helped to shepherd the legislation through to enactment. The Interstate System today is 47,000 miles long, comprised of 62 superhighways crisscrossing the Nation in a grid. Twenty-four percent of all travel occurs on the interstates, and the system has obtained a record of being twice as safe as other highways. Unfortunately, when people look back 50 years from now at the highway legislation that the Senate will consider shortly, I doubt that history will remember this as having helped improve on President Eisenhower's ``grand plan.'' We are no longer focused on building a unified transportation system to improve the safety, security, and economy of our Nation as a whole. Instead, we are faced with legislation that redistributes funding to the States in an unfair manner. Approximately every 6 years we reauthorize our Nation's multiyear highway, transit, and safety programs. We last reauthorized these programs in 1998 with the enactment of TEA-21 following extensive debate in the Senate. In the 108th Congress we did not reauthorize these programs, and, instead, Congress passed a series of short-term extensions of TEA-21, and this happened for good reason. The bill brought to the Senate floor in the last Congress would have increased overall funding to $318 billion, $100 billion over the TEA-21 enacted level. I commend the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for reducing the authorized number to match the President's fiscal 2006 budget proposal of $284 billion in the version of the bill reported by his committee. Reduction in the overall size of the bill was a significant improvement over the legislation presented to the Senate last year. Fiscal discipline is a key component of this debate. As Alan Greenspan warned some days ago, ``Under existing tax rates and reasonable assumptions about other spending, projections make clear that the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years.'' We need to control our spending. We must. And that is why the overall size of this bill should not be inflated. We are considering a substitute amendment to the bill that as proposed increases obligations by $11 billion, and I think that is wrong. According to the Statement of Administration Policy regarding the highway bill, ``Should the obligation or net authorization levels that would result from the final bill exceed (that amount), the President's senior advisors will recommend that he veto the bill.'' Apparently, we are now going to test whether the President will veto the bill. Fiscal prudence is crucial, but even if the conferees act sensibly and recognize the need for an agreement that would be acceptable to the President, that alone would not make the legislation adequate. Equity is also crucial and, unfortunately, the highway bill that is before us retains unfair features of past bills. In some cases, it is even more unfair than last year's legislation. This year's highway bill perpetuates the historical discrepancy between donor States and donee States. Remarkably, not only does the bill continue the disparity, it actually exacerbates it. Whereas the bill that was passed last year by the Senate would have increased theoretically every State's rate of return to 95 percent in the final year of the bill, the substitute amendment before the Senate only promises a rate of 92 percent in 2009 for those States. Until then many States would linger at a rate of return of 90.5 in the first year and 91 percent thereafter while others receive more--in some cases much more than what they contribute to the highway trust fund. As if that were not enough, this year's bill would actually propose to create further disparities between States. Although ``equity'' is in the title of the legislation, the number of donor States would increase from 28 under current law to 31. Under the Environment and Public Works Committee's so-called formula, which is less a formula than it is a series of calculations consisting of arbitrary funding caps and floors, some States would actually receive a greater rate of return than they would have under last year's bill, despite the fact that this year's overall funding is less. That is remarkable. My colleagues may wonder how this is possible, and they may question my facts. But as hard as this may be to believe, it is true. For example, the State of Missouri, which currently receives a rate of return of 91 percent, would have received an increased rate of return of 95 percent immediately and then throughout the reauthorization. Under the substitute amendment before us, Missouri will go from a rate of return of 91 percent to 99 percent immediately. Despite Missouri's good fortune, five States would continue to linger at the bottom of the barrel for 4 years. In the fifth year, at least theoretically, these States would increase their rates of return to 92 percent, a modest increase of 1.5 percent over current law; 1.5 percent when other States enjoy a rate of return of over 200 percent, in one case almost 530 percent, in that final year. They say that beggars can't be choosers, but this legislation shouldn't be passed solely to prove that point. States like Arizona, California, and Texas should not be in the position of begging for their fair share of contributions to the highway trust fund. I fully recognize that during the years when the Federal Government was building the interstate system, a redistribution of funding between the States may have made sense. Clearly, it would have been very difficult for the State of Montana, for example, with fewer than a million people, to pay the full cost of building its share of the intestate system. But that era is over. Congress declared the construction of the interstate system complete in 1991. Yet here we are, almost 15 years later, and donor States are still expected to agree to the redistribution of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to other States regardless of the already enormous transportation needs of donor States. Let me be clear. Today, the need is in the highest growth States, which face some of this Nation's toughest transportation challenges. According to the most recent Census Bureau projections, Florida, Texas, and Arizona, all super-donor States receiving the minimum rate of return, will be among the five fastest-growing States over the next 25 years. Yet the donee States, many with shrinking populations, continue to receive growing subsidies from donor States. Meanwhile, States like Florida, Texas, and Arizona, and others including Colorado and Indiana, would be held for no apparent reason at the bottom. Other States, including Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia also would continue to get shortchanged. This is not the right approach, it is unfair, and we should do everything we can to ensure that any bill voted off this floor is more equitable for all States. Now, I am sure we will hear about the great transportation needs of the States that receive more funds than they contribute. And I have no doubt that those States do, in fact, have significant needs. But how was it determined that California, for example, should have an average of $260 million per year of its funding redistributed as the EPW- reported bill would direct? Why aren't California's transportation needs as worthy of receiving the same percentage of Federal funds as provided to meet the transportation needs of a State like New York, for example, which is scheduled to receive a rate of return of 111 percent, or an average of over $140 million per year more than it contributes. This significant rate of return isn't the product of savvy investment. It is a guaranteed rate of return well above 100 percent that is built on the backs of donor States. Why should a State like Alaska receive a rate of return in 2009 of almost 530 percent when it currently already receives a return of 500 percent? Why should Montana receive a rate of return of almost 228 percent, or Vermont a rate of over 212 percent? These figures defy any reasonable explanation other than the following: This bill is less about the integrity of our Nation's transportation system than it is about maximizing the amount of money going to some States at the expense of others. I support a long-term reauthorization of our Nation's surface transportation programs and I understand the vital nature of this funding to our States. But before we take action on this bill, I urge my colleagues to start asking questions and to take seriously the consequences of increasing the size of this bill beyond the $284 billion level and of perpetuating the inequitable distribution of funds under this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after more than 5 months of work, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, and Salazar in introducing the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. This bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation is designed to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. This landmark legislation would bring common sense to the current system and promote our national security interests. I am equally pleased by the effort of Congressmen Kolbe, Flake, and Gutierrez who are introducing the House companion bill. While in previous years we worked independently on immigration reform legislation, we are coming together today to introduce what we believe is groundbreaking, comprehensive legislation. Over a year ago, the President laid out a framework for what comprehensive immigration reform should look like. We have used the President's framework to craft this package and I applaud the President for his leadership on this issue. The simple fact is that America's immigration system is broken. Recent vigilante activities along the southwestern border have shown that the current situation is not sustainable. Americans are frustrated with our lack of border security and our inability to control illegal immigration. We have spent billions of dollars on border enforcement. We have sent more, but still not enough, Federal agents to the border equipped with sophisticated technology. We have worked to harden the border in key places. And yet, illegal immigration continues. I would like to mention some startling statistics that demonstrate the critical need for immigration reform. I think the numbers speak for themselves: Over 300 people died last year trying to cross the border; about 200 of those deaths occurred in Arizona's desert. Last year 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol in 2004. Fifty-one percent of those were caught in Arizona. The Border Patrol is currently apprehending over 1,000 undocumented immigrants a day in Arizona. According to the FBI, an increasing number of these individuals are OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, from ``countries of interest.'' Homeland security is our Nation's number one priority, and this legislation includes numerous provisions that together will make our nation more secure. This bill includes provisions to strengthen border security, both on our side of the border and throughout this hemisphere. Through the establishment of a new electronic employment verification system, the bill will create a more secure mechanism to better enforce our nation's immigration laws within our borders. Additionally, the bill enhances the authority of the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct random audits to ensure that employers are holding up their end of the bargain. And if they aren't, they face double fines. Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue. This bill recognizes the problems inherent in the current system and provides a logical and effective means to address these problems. The reality is, there are an estimated million undocumented people living and working in this country. It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented, and if we did, it would ground our Nation's economy to a halt. These millions of people are working. Aliens will not come forward to simply ``report and deport.'' We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. Anyone who thinks this goal can be achieved without providing an eventual path to a permanent legal status is not serious about solving this problem. Part of the failure of the existing system is its inability to provide sufficient legal channels to pair willing workers with willing employers. This bill establishes a new market-based temporary worker program so that when there is no U.S. worker to fill a job, employers will be able to hire willing and able foreign workers who have gone through security background checks, medical exams, and paid a fee for their visa. And, by doing away with outdated numerical caps on this program, this bill recognizes that the needs of the U.S. economy are constantly in flux, and our immigration system must match those needs. I don't believe there is another issue that is more important to our Nation than immigration reform. For far too long, our Nation's broken immigration laws have gone unreformed, leaving Americans vulnerable. We can no longer afford to delay reform. The complex and difficult problems associated with immigration reform will not be solved overnight, but they are among the most difficult challenges facing our Nation today. That is why it is so important that the President shares our commitment to comprehensive reform. Together with the President, I am committed to this process and remain very hopeful that we will succeed. I want to especially express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and his staff for their sincere commitment to this critical issue. Also, the contributions to the bill as recommended by Senator Brownback have been invaluable to this effort. I would also like to thank Senator Lugar, who allowed us to incorporate critical international border enforcement provisions from his legislation, the North American Cooperative Security Act. Through the collective efforts of a wide range of bipartisan interests in both Houses of Congress, not to mention immigration advocacy groups, representatives of our Nation's businesses, and several labor unions, this comprehensive legislation provides a meaningful direction for how our immigration system should be reformed, and our border security strengthened. I look forward to working with all interested parties in the important and necessary effort to once and for all reform our broken immigration system.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 in order to bring the relocation process to an orderly conclusion. I look forward to working with all affected parties on this bill and will work with them to ensure it takes into account their views. This bill will phase out the Navajo-Hopi relocation program by September 30, 2008, and at that time transfer all remaining responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior. It provides a time certain for eligible Navajo and Hopi individuals to apply for and receive relocation benefits and after that time the Federal Government will no longer be obligated to provide replacement homes for those individuals. Under this legislation, the funds that would have been used to provide replacement homes to such individuals will be held in trust by the Secretary for distribution to the individual or their heirs. The Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 was enacted to resolve longstanding disputes that have divided the Navajo and Hopi Indian Tribes for over a century. The origins of this dispute can be traced directly to the creation of the 1882 reservation for the Hopi Tribe and the subsequent creation of the 1934 Navajo Reservation. At the time these reservations were established, Navajo families lived within the lands set aside for the Hopi Tribe and Hopi families lived within lands set aside for the Navajo Nation and tensions between the two tribes continued to heighten. In 1958 Congress, in an effort to resolve this dispute, passed legislation that authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1882 reservation and to their respective claims and rights. That legislation gave rise to over 35 years of continuous litigation between the tribes in an effort to resolve their respective rights and claims to the land. In 1974, Congress enacted the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act which established Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams under the auspices of a Federal mediator to negotiate a settlement to the 1882 reservation land dispute. The act also authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1934 reservation and to file claims for damages arising out of the dispute against each other or the United States. The act also established a three member Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission to oversee the relocation of members of the Navajo Nation who were living on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who were living on lands partitioned to the Navajo Nation. Since its establishment, the relocation program has been an extremely difficult and contentious process. When this program was first established, the estimated cost of providing relocation benefits to approximately 6,000 Navajos estimated eligible for relocation was roughly $40 million. These figures woefully underestimated the number of families impacted by relocation and the tremendous delays that have plagued this program. By 1996, the United States had expended over $350 million to relocate more than 11,000 Navajo and Hopi tribal members. At that time, there remained over 640 eligible families who had never received relocation benefits and an additional 50 to 100 families who had never applied for relocation benefits. There were also over 130 eligibility appeals pending. Without question, the funding for this settlement has far exceeded the original cost estimates by more than 1000 percent. Since 1975, Congress has appropriated over $440 million for this program. At its inception, the relocation program was intended to be a temporary program that was established to fulfill a specific mission and we cannot continue to fund it with no end in sight. Moreover, I am convinced that our current Federal budgetary pressures require us to ensure that the Navajo-Hopi relocation housing program is brought to an orderly and certain conclusion. It is for that reason that I am introducing the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments of 2005. This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi Indian relocation program by September 30, 2008, and transfer the remaining responsibilities under the act to the Secretary of the Interior. Under the bill, the relocation commissioner shall transfer to the Secretary such funds as are necessary to construct replacement homes for any eligible head of household who has left the Hopi partitioned land but who has not received a replacement home by September 30, 2008. These funds will be held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to such individual or their heirs. In addition, the bill includes provisions establishing an expedited procedure for handling appeals of final eligibility determinations. This bill is similar to the legislation I introduced during the 104th Congress. S. 1111 proposed to phase out the relocation program by September 2001. A hearing was held on that bill and comments were received from the affected parties. At that time, many of the witnesses stated that with limited exception, the program could come to a resolution under the time line proposed in S. 1111. Opposition to passing the legislation was based in part on the incomplete process of approval of the accommodation lease agreements between the Hopi Tribe and individual Navajos who were still living on the Hopi partitioned lands. That action has since occurred and the Commission has had eight additional years to conclude its responsibilities. Therefore, it is now time for the Congress to act to bring the long and difficult process of relocation to an orderly conclusion. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 in order to bring the relocation process to an orderly conclusion. I look forward to working with all affected parties on this bill and will work with them to ensure it takes into account their views. This bill will phase out the Navajo-Hopi relocation program by September 30, 2008, and at that time transfer all remaining responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior. It provides a time certain for eligible Navajo and Hopi individuals to apply for and receive relocation benefits and after that time the Federal Government will no longer be obligated to provide replacement homes for those individuals. Under this legislation, the funds that would have been used to provide replacement homes to such individuals will be held in trust by the Secretary for distribution to the individual or their heirs. The Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 was enacted to resolve longstanding disputes that have divided the Navajo and Hopi Indian Tribes for over a century. The origins of this dispute can be traced directly to the creation of the 1882 reservation for the Hopi Tribe and the subsequent creation of the 1934 Navajo Reservation. At the time these reservations were established, Navajo families lived within the lands set aside for the Hopi Tribe and Hopi families lived within lands set aside for the Navajo Nation and tensions between the two tribes continued to heighten. In 1958 Congress, in an effort to resolve this dispute, passed legislation that authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1882 reservation and to their respective claims and rights. That legislation gave rise to over 35 years of continuous litigation between the tribes in an effort to resolve their respective rights and claims to the land. In 1974, Congress enacted the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act which established Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams under the auspices of a Federal mediator to negotiate a settlement to the 1882 reservation land dispute. The act also authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1934 reservation and to file claims for damages arising out of the dispute against each other or the United States. The act also established a three member Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission to oversee the relocation of members of the Navajo Nation who were living on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who were living on lands partitioned to the Navajo Nation. Since its establishment, the relocation program has been an extremely difficult and contentious process. When this program was first established, the estimated cost of providing relocation benefits to approximately 6,000 Navajos estimated eligible for relocation was roughly $40 million. These figures woefully underestimated the number of families impacted by relocation and the tremendous delays that have plagued this program. By 1996, the United States had expended over $350 million to relocate more than 11,000 Navajo and Hopi tribal members. At that time, there remained over 640 eligible families who had never received relocation benefits and an additional 50 to 100 families who had never applied for relocation benefits. There were also over 130 eligibility appeals pending. Without question, the funding for this settlement has far exceeded the original cost estimates by more than 1000 percent. Since 1975, Congress has appropriated over $440 million for this program. At its inception, the relocation program was intended to be a temporary program that was established to fulfill a specific mission and we cannot continue to fund it with no end in sight. Moreover, I am convinced that our current Federal budgetary pressures require us to ensure that the Navajo-Hopi relocation housing program is brought to an orderly and certain conclusion. It is for that reason that I am introducing the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments of 2005. This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi Indian relocation program by September 30, 2008, and transfer the remaining responsibilities under the act to the Secretary of the Interior. Under the bill, the relocation commissioner shall transfer to the Secretary such funds as are necessary to construct replacement homes for any eligible head of household who has left the Hopi partitioned land but who has not received a replacement home by September 30, 2008. These funds will be held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to such individual or their heirs. In addition, the bill includes provisions establishing an expedited procedure for handling appeals of final eligibility determinations. This bill is similar to the legislation I introduced during the 104th Congress. S. 1111 proposed to phase out the relocation program by September 2001. A hearing was held on that bill and comments were received from the affected parties. At that time, many of the witnesses stated that with limited exception, the program could come to a resolution under the time line proposed in S. 1111. Opposition to passing the legislation was based in part on the incomplete process of approval of the accommodation lease agreements between the Hopi Tribe and individual Navajos who were still living on the Hopi partitioned lands. That action has since occurred and the Commission has had eight additional years to conclude its responsibilities. Therefore, it is now time for the Congress to act to bring the long and difficult process of relocation to an orderly conclusion. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when the Senate debated this bill a few weeks ago, I asked my colleagues a simple question. What is the purpose of an emergency appropriations bill? The purpose, it seems to me, is to fund unexpected priorities--emergencies that simply cannot wait for the normal budget process. The conference report largely fulfills that purpose. It covers unexpected costs associated with the war on terror, tsunami relief, and national security priorities, including funding for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly support funding in these areas. But that is not all it does, Mr. President. This conference report has also served as a magnet for non-emergency spending and includes a host of earmarks. Let me be clear: I support this conference report because of the critical resources it provides for our troops and for our other emergency priorities, including tsunami relief. But at the same time I am deeply disturbed that the Congress isn't exhibiting restraint. Knowing that this conference report was a ``must pass'' piece of legislation, we have once again loaded it with unrelated provisions. Let me remind my colleagues that we are experiencing enormous budget deficits. At some point, we will have to embrace some degree of fiscal responsibility. We should start with this emergency supplemental. The scope of emergency appropriations has traditionally been limited, and for good reason. We already have a proper budget and appropriations process. We don't need another. The proper process is supposed to allow Congress to meet Federal responsibilities while closely monitoring the effect our spending has on the budget deficit and the national debt. But appropriations that are designated as ``emergency'' do not count against the discretionary budget ceilings that we ourselves set. They add to costs incurred by the government and cause the current budget deficit to grow. With enactment of this measure, supplemental military spending alone since September 11, 2001, will top $200 billion. I am not questioning funding the war on terror; but I am questioning the unnecessary add-ons. With respect to the substance of this conference report, I am pleased that it will provide the necessary resources to our troops as well as additional funds for our homeland security needs. It increases veterans benefit levels and expands eligibility, and provides higher benefits to family members of those killed in military service. This foreign affairs provisions of the conference report are remarkably, and commendably, free of pork. As one who supports ensuring that every taxpayer dollar counts, I commend my colleagues for their restraint in this area while meeting the President's request for funding for the victims of the South East Asian tsunami. Unfortunately, this conference report also includes some unnecessary provisions, examples of which I will give in just a moment. I fully recognize that it isn't only the fault of the appropriators that the Congress has been forced into this new pattern of adopting emergency appropriations measures. Overly partisan politics has largely prevented us from following the regular legislative order, and that fact must change. I would ask my colleagues whether they believe the following examples--just a select few from this conference report--constitute ``emergency spending'': $2,000,000 to upgrade the chemistry laboratories at Drew University in New Jersey. According to its website, Drew University has a total enrollment of 2,600 students, operates with a $200,000,000 endowment, and draws more National Merit Scholars than many other top liberal arts colleges in the nation. A prestigious institution indeed, but I see no way in which funding for its chemistry labs is a critical national spending emergency; $500,000 for the Oral History of the Negotiated Settlement project at the University of Nevada-Reno; $2,000,000 to continue funding for the Southeast Regional Cooling, Heating and Power and Biofuel Application Center in Mississippi; $4,000,000 to payoff debt at the Fire Sciences Academy in Elko, Nevada; and $2,000,000 for the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences in Michigan. Additionally, notwithstanding Senate rules against legislating on an appropriations bill, the legislation before us today contains plenty of policy-related, non-appropriations language. For example: The conference report directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow oil and gas exploration underneath the Gulf Island National Seashore, a protected National Park in Mississippi. This changes current Federal policy disallowing such exploration; a line-item in the conference resolution blocks the EPA from revising how it collects fees for the registration of pesticides. For several years, similar language has been routinely added to VA-HUD/EPA appropriations legislation. Now this provision has found a new home in the emergency spending bill; it authorizes the Bureau or Reclamation to study the viability of establishing a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in the Rio Grande River; it directs the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the Indiana Harbor and Canal disposal project; and California lawmakers have seen to it that this bill provides funds for San Gabriel Basin restoration. Mr. President, we simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. Let's be clear about what we are doing. The Government is running a deficit because it is spending more than it takes in. So each one of the earmarks in this bill, we are borrowing money--and saddling future generations of Americans with unnecessary debt. If we had no choice but to act in this way, this might be, a understandable, temporary method of budgeting. But the fact is that we do have a choice. At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this: If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will have. Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans? Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that: (T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one certainty is that (the resolution of this situation will require difficult choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources or raising financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address the competing claims. It falls on the Congress, my friends. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watch-dog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble. Dire predictions, and what are we doing about it? Are we restraining our spending? No, of course not. We are at it again, finding new and ever more creative ways to funnel money to the special interests. We have to face the facts. Congress cannot continue to spend taxpayer dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people deserve better.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Restoring Safety to Indian Women Act'' and I look forward to working with the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that the provisions of this bill are given consideration, particularly as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act moves forward. I also wish to thank Senator Byron Dorgan for co-sponsoring this legislation and for his dedication to addressing the health and welfare needs of Indian tribes. This legislation creates a new Federal criminal offense authorizing Federal prosecutors to charge repeat domestic violence offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone and to use tribal court convictions for domestic violence for that purpose. It authorizes the creation of tribal criminal history databases to document these convictions and protection orders for use by all law enforcement. The bill authorizes BIA and tribal officers to make arrests for domestic violence assaults committed outside of their presence and would authorizes a comprehensive study of domestic violence in Indian Country to determine its impact to Indian tribes. The 1994 Violence Against Women Act has had a tremendous impact on raising the national awareness of domestic violence and providing communities, including Indian tribes, the resources to respond to the devastating impact of domestic violence. National studies show that one in four women are victims of domestic violence. Since 1999, the Department of Justice has issued various studies which report that Indian women experience the highest rates of domestic violence compared to all other groups in the United States. These reports state that one out of every three Indian women are victims of sexual assault; that from 1979 to 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death of Indian females between the ages of 15 to 34 and that 75 percent of those deaths were committed by a family member or acquaintance. These are startling statistics that require our close examination and a better understanding of how to prevent and respond to domestic violence in Indian Country. Domestic violence is a national problem and not one that is unique to Indian Country. Yet, due to the unique status of Indian tribes, there are obstacles faced by Indian tribal police, Federal investigators, tribal and Federal prosecutors and courts that impede their ability to respond to domestic violence in Indian Country. This bill is intended to remove these obstacles at all levels and to enhance the ability of each agency to respond to acts of domestic violence when they occur. The division of criminal jurisdiction between Federal and tribal law enforcement and prosecutors working in Indian Country present challenges. For example, Federal prosecutors prosecute acts of domestic violence in Indian Country using the Assault or, unfortunately, the Murder statutes in the Major Crimes Act. These statutes require the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was disfigured, suffered a serious risk of death or was killed before these felony charges can be filed. Meanwhile, the research has shown that perpetrators of domestic violence become increasingly more violent over time. Under the existing statutory scheme, these perpetrators may escape felony charges until they seriously injure or kill someone. This bill would create a new Federal offense aimed at the habitual domestic violence offender and allow tribal court convictions to count for purposes of Federal felony prosecution when the perpetrator has at least two separate Federal, State or tribal convictions for crimes involving assault, sexual abuse or a violent felony against a spouse or intimate partner. This provision is similar to many state laws that apply a felony penalty to an individual who commits multiple offenses. It will empower Indian tribal prosecutors and courts to document domestic violence cases at the local level and give federal prosecutors the ability to intervene in the cycle of violence by charging repeat offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone. The bill would also encourage the use of existing grants authorized by the Violence Against Women Act to create tribal criminal history databases for use by Indian tribes and tribal, State and Federal law enforcement agencies to document final convictions, stay away orders and orders of protection issued by tribal courts. As I understand it, no such database exists today. This database would be used solely as a law enforcement and court tracking tool. It would enable tribal, State and Federal law enforcement officers to determine whether an individual is a habitual domestic violence offender and therefore subject to the felony crime described above. It also would enhance the implementation of the criminal provisions that already exist in the Violence Against Women Act. All manner of law enforcement agencies report that responding to domestic violence disturbances are among the most dangerous situations that a police officer faces. Therefore, many States have enacted immediate arrest or removal policies that enable responding officers to diffuse these dangerous situations. Currently, the primary law enforcement authority for Indian tribes, the BIA police, are only authorized to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in Indian Country if the offense is committed in the presence of the officer or the offense is a felony. This legislation would expand the authority of the BIA police, and tribal police agencies that derive their arrest authority by contract with the BIA, to make an arrest without a warrant for a domestic violence offense when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested committed the offense. This arrest authority will enable a responding officer to diffuse the dangerous situation by arresting the perpetrator. This will go a long way toward improving public safety for both the officer and the domestic violence victim. Finally, while the national data on the rates of violence affecting Indian women are astounding, we do not know the full extent to which Indian women residing in Indian Country are impacted by domestic violence or the impact of domestic violence on Indian tribes. For example, we know that nationally, domestic violence costs $4.1 billion each year for direct medical and mental health services and in my own State of Arizona, last year, police received approximately 100,000 domestic violence calls, but we do not know the extent to which tribal prevention programs, law enforcement, court or medical intervention resources are similarly impacted. Therefore, this bill would require that a comprehensive study be done on the scope of the domestic violence problem in Indian Country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Indian Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee to ensure that these statistics become a record of the past. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Restoring Safety to Indian Women Act'' and I look forward to working with the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that the provisions of this bill are given consideration, particularly as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act moves forward. I also wish to thank Senator Byron Dorgan for co-sponsoring this legislation and for his dedication to addressing the health and welfare needs of Indian tribes. This legislation creates a new Federal criminal offense authorizing Federal prosecutors to charge repeat domestic violence offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone and to use tribal court convictions for domestic violence for that purpose. It authorizes the creation of tribal criminal history databases to document these convictions and protection orders for use by all law enforcement. The bill authorizes BIA and tribal officers to make arrests for domestic violence assaults committed outside of their presence and would authorizes a comprehensive study of domestic violence in Indian Country to determine its impact to Indian tribes. The 1994 Violence Against Women Act has had a tremendous impact on raising the national awareness of domestic violence and providing communities, including Indian tribes, the resources to respond to the devastating impact of domestic violence. National studies show that one in four women are victims of domestic violence. Since 1999, the Department of Justice has issued various studies which report that Indian women experience the highest rates of domestic violence compared to all other groups in the United States. These reports state that one out of every three Indian women are victims of sexual assault; that from 1979 to 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death of Indian females between the ages of 15 to 34 and that 75 percent of those deaths were committed by a family member or acquaintance. These are startling statistics that require our close examination and a better understanding of how to prevent and respond to domestic violence in Indian Country. Domestic violence is a national problem and not one that is unique to Indian Country. Yet, due to the unique status of Indian tribes, there are obstacles faced by Indian tribal police, Federal investigators, tribal and Federal prosecutors and courts that impede their ability to respond to domestic violence in Indian Country. This bill is intended to remove these obstacles at all levels and to enhance the ability of each agency to respond to acts of domestic violence when they occur. The division of criminal jurisdiction between Federal and tribal law enforcement and prosecutors working in Indian Country present challenges. For example, Federal prosecutors prosecute acts of domestic violence in Indian Country using the Assault or, unfortunately, the Murder statutes in the Major Crimes Act. These statutes require the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was disfigured, suffered a serious risk of death or was killed before these felony charges can be filed. Meanwhile, the research has shown that perpetrators of domestic violence become increasingly more violent over time. Under the existing statutory scheme, these perpetrators may escape felony charges until they seriously injure or kill someone. This bill would create a new Federal offense aimed at the habitual domestic violence offender and allow tribal court convictions to count for purposes of Federal felony prosecution when the perpetrator has at least two separate Federal, State or tribal convictions for crimes involving assault, sexual abuse or a violent felony against a spouse or intimate partner. This provision is similar to many state laws that apply a felony penalty to an individual who commits multiple offenses. It will empower Indian tribal prosecutors and courts to document domestic violence cases at the local level and give federal prosecutors the ability to intervene in the cycle of violence by charging repeat offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone. The bill would also encourage the use of existing grants authorized by the Violence Against Women Act to create tribal criminal history databases for use by Indian tribes and tribal, State and Federal law enforcement agencies to document final convictions, stay away orders and orders of protection issued by tribal courts. As I understand it, no such database exists today. This database would be used solely as a law enforcement and court tracking tool. It would enable tribal, State and Federal law enforcement officers to determine whether an individual is a habitual domestic violence offender and therefore subject to the felony crime described above. It also would enhance the implementation of the criminal provisions that already exist in the Violence Against Women Act. All manner of law enforcement agencies report that responding to domestic violence disturbances are among the most dangerous situations that a police officer faces. Therefore, many States have enacted immediate arrest or removal policies that enable responding officers to diffuse these dangerous situations. Currently, the primary law enforcement authority for Indian tribes, the BIA police, are only authorized to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in Indian Country if the offense is committed in the presence of the officer or the offense is a felony. This legislation would expand the authority of the BIA police, and tribal police agencies that derive their arrest authority by contract with the BIA, to make an arrest without a warrant for a domestic violence offense when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested committed the offense. This arrest authority will enable a responding officer to diffuse the dangerous situation by arresting the perpetrator. This will go a long way toward improving public safety for both the officer and the domestic violence victim. Finally, while the national data on the rates of violence affecting Indian women are astounding, we do not know the full extent to which Indian women residing in Indian Country are impacted by domestic violence or the impact of domestic violence on Indian tribes. For example, we know that nationally, domestic violence costs $4.1 billion each year for direct medical and mental health services and in my own State of Arizona, last year, police received approximately 100,000 domestic violence calls, but we do not know the extent to which tribal prevention programs, law enforcement, court or medical intervention resources are similarly impacted. Therefore, this bill would require that a comprehensive study be done on the scope of the domestic violence problem in Indian Country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Indian Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee to ensure that these statistics become a record of the past. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this summer Russia will assume the rotating leadership position of the Group of Eight nations for the first time. I have expressed my concern repeatedly about the democratic deterioration in Russia and I believe that, unless the Russian leadership makes significant democratic progress, its continued membership in the G-8 should be blocked. Since Senator Lieberman and I first expressed this view in a resolution we submitted in 2003, I have heard similar sentiments from Senate colleagues and individuals outside the Congress. Many observers across the political and ideological spectrum are concerned by Russia's retreat from core democratic principles. President Vladimir Putin recently delivered an address aimed at reassuring the world that he takes democracy seriously. And while a number of the passages were welcome, others displayed a view of history and of Russia's role in the world that is simply astonishing. I would like to share with my colleagues today's Washington Post editorial that makes this point in detail. Moscow's commitment to democracy and the rule of law is a vital element of America's relationship with Russia, and with Russia's ties to various multilateral institutions. I hope that the Russian leadership might see that its national interests lie in cooperation, not competition, with democratic countries. I also hope that Russia will change many elements of its policy toward smaller neighbors. Russia has based Russian troops in Georgia and Moldova without the consent of those countries, thereby undermining their sovereignty and violating international law. If the Kremlin persists in persecuting Mr. Putin's political rivals, cracking down on the free media, and intimidating countries along Russian borders, I believe that Russian chairmanship of the G-8 is entirely inappropriate. Again, I recommend to my colleagues the Washington Post editorial I submit for the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Television Information-Enhancement for the Visually Impaired (TIVI) Act of 2005. This bill would require television broadcasters, during at least 50 hours of their prime time or children's programming every quarter, to insert verbal descriptions of actions or settings not contained in the normal audio track of a program. This can be accomplished through technology commonly referred to as ``video description services,'' which allows television programming to be more accessible and enjoyable for the visually impaired. This bill is necessary due to a 2002 decision by District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission''), recognizing the need to make television programming accessible to the visually impaired, promulgated rules that mandated television broadcast stations and their affiliates, which met certain market requirements, provide 50 hours of video descriptions during prime time or children's programming every calendar quarter. Television programmers challenged the Commission's authority to promulgate such rules. The Circuit Court held that the Commission did not have authority to issue the regulations. This bill would provide the Commission the authority to promulgate such regulations and reinstate the FCC's video description rules issued in 2000. Additionally, the bill would require the FCC to consider whether it is economically and technically feasible and consistent with the public interest to include ``accessible information'' in its video description rules, which may include written information displayed on a screen, hazardous warnings and other emergency information, and local and national news bulletins. Since the spectrum that television broadcasters utilize is a public asset, one would expect that programming over the public airwaves is accessible to all Americans. Unfortunately, that is not the case today and that is why we must pass the TIVI Act. I sincerely hope that television broadcasters will work with us to provide video descriptions for individuals with visual disabilities.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Television Information-Enhancement for the Visually Impaired (TIVI) Act of 2005. This bill would require television broadcasters, during at least 50 hours of their prime time or children's programming every quarter, to insert verbal descriptions of actions or settings not contained in the normal audio track of a program. This can be accomplished through technology commonly referred to as ``video description services,'' which allows television programming to be more accessible and enjoyable for the visually impaired. This bill is necessary due to a 2002 decision by District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'' or ``Commission''), recognizing the need to make television programming accessible to the visually impaired, promulgated rules that mandated television broadcast stations and their affiliates, which met certain market requirements, provide 50 hours of video descriptions during prime time or children's programming every calendar quarter. Television programmers challenged the Commission's authority to promulgate such rules. The Circuit Court held that the Commission did not have authority to issue the regulations. This bill would provide the Commission the authority to promulgate such regulations and reinstate the FCC's video description rules issued in 2000. Additionally, the bill would require the FCC to consider whether it is economically and technically feasible and consistent with the public interest to include ``accessible information'' in its video description rules, which may include written information displayed on a screen, hazardous warnings and other emergency information, and local and national news bulletins. Since the spectrum that television broadcasters utilize is a public asset, one would expect that programming over the public airwaves is accessible to all Americans. Unfortunately, that is not the case today and that is why we must pass the TIVI Act. I sincerely hope that television broadcasters will work with us to provide video descriptions for individuals with visual disabilities.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, Salazar, and Feinstein in introducing legislation to restore and maintain our National Parks by the centennial anniversary of the National Park System in 2016. Heralding the establishment of the first National Parks, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, ``We have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune.'' And what a priceless fortune Americans enjoy--Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Tetons, Mt. Rushmore, the Everglades, and hundreds of other extraordinary national parks that grace our country. Hundreds of millions of families and visitors from all over the world have visited these parks for recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities as well as the sheer pleasure of being surrounded by their natural beauty or historical significance. Unfortunately, all of this public enjoyment and use coupled with the lack of adequate financial investment in our parks has left them in a state of disrepair and neglect. A multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog has cast a long shadow over the glory of our national park heritage. An annual operating deficit estimated at $600 million has further diminished the integrity of national park programs and facilities. The National Parks Centennial Act would allow all Americans to contribute to the restoration of the parks through the creation of a Centennial Fund with monies generated by a check-off box on federal tax returns. The funds collected will be directed to the priority maintenance and operation needs of the national parks to make them fiscally sound by 2016. What better way or time to demonstrate that ``we are worthy of the good fortune of our parks''? I commend the National Parks Conservation Association for promoting this sound and innovative approach to remedying the significant deterioration of our parks. A companion House bill has been introduced by Representatives Souder and Baird with solid bipartisan support. Surely this is legislation that we can all agree on and support. All of our lives have been enriched by our National Parks. This bill provides an opportunity to show our appreciation to restore and maintain our country's cultural and natural heritage for generations to come. The passage of this legislation will ensure that our national parks will have a glorious 100th birthday to celebrate. Let's get on with it!

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. We all know, somewhat unexpectedly, Mr. Bolton's nomination has been held pending further discussion and consideration by the Foreign Relations Committee. I want to say I strongly support Mr. Bolton's nomination. He has been confirmed by the Senate four times in the past. He is a smart, experienced, hardworking, and talented man, and he knows the United Nations. He is not a career diplomat, but neither was Jean Kirkpatrick. He is not a career diplomat, either by profession or temperament, but then the role of ambassador to the U.N. has always required something special. A look back at some of the personalities who have held the job--from Adlai Stevenson to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, from Madeleine Albright, to Jean Kirkpatrick, to Richard Holbrooke--shows that directness and forcefulness are assets, not hindrances, to effectiveness there. We all know Mr. Bolton is perhaps not the world's most beloved manager, nor one to keep his temper entirely under wraps. Perhaps, Mr. President, that evokes a certain sympathy and empathy from this individual, although it is well known that on no occasion have I ever become emotionally involved in anything. I am sorry about a little levity here. Seriously, I ask my colleagues is it unique to Mr. Bolton to be strong in his views and opinions? If a temper and an unorthodox management style were disqualifiers from Government service, I would bet a large number of people in Washington would be out of a job. It is worth wondering not whether Mr. Bolton is a mild, genteel diplomat--we know he is not--but rather whether he is the representative we need at the United Nations. We need an ambassador who truly knows the U.N. We need an ambassador who is willing to shake up an organization that requires serious reform. No one knows better than the Senator from Minnesota, who is in the chair, who has been heavily involved in the issues of the U.N. We need an ambassador who has the trust of the President and the Secretary of State. Mr. Bolton, it seems to me, has what it takes for the job. I am reminded, on the judges issue and in this issue, elections do have consequences. I believe there are significant numbers of the American people who do take into consideration the consequences of a Presidential election, and that is the earned right of a President, under anything other than unusual circumstances, to pick his team. There were nominees of the previous Clinton administration I didn't agree with, I would not have selected but because President Clinton was elected President, I voted for his nominees on that basis. The U.N. is a vital organization to the world and to the national interests of the United States. It is not perfect by any means, and John Bolton knows this. There has been talk that the nomination of Mr. Bolton was an indication of the administration's disdain for multilateral diplomacy. I cannot believe Mr. Bolton wishes to be dispatched for 4 years to an ineffective body, unloved by the United States. I do believe he wants to work actively to reform the U.N., make it stronger and better. Mr. Bolton, seeing clearly the U.N.'s strengths and its weaknesses, will be well positioned to improve the organization and America's relationship with him. As the Chair well knows, what kind of a U.N. is it that has Libya, Cuba, and Zimbabwe as part of its Human Rights Commission? Is it all right with the U.N. today? We are seeing more and more indications of the Oil-for-Food scandal which, again, the Senator from Minnesota, the Chair, has carefully examined. There is a crying need for reform. I am pleased the Secretary General of the U.N. has made proposals for reform. I support those and believe perhaps we need more. Again, it seems to me Mr. Bolton sees clearly the strengths and weaknesses, and he would be well positioned to help in this reform effort. Let's not forget that it desperately needs improving. It is hard to take an organization that has countries such as I mentioned that are members of the Human Rights Commission or whose General Assembly equates Zionism with racism. But at the moment, a great opportunity presents itself. The panel named by the Secretary General, on which one of my most respected Americans and beloved Americans, Brent Scowcroft, served, has recently issued its list of recommendations to transform the U.N. Kofi Annan has presented his own serious plan to implement these recommendations. In other words, I argue that right now the U.N. is in a unique moment, perhaps, in its history; and because of the scandals associated with it, it is open to reform. We need a strong personality, in my view, and a knowledgeable one to help bring about those reforms. But without hard work and pressure, nothing will happen. Over the years, the U.N. has proven itself to be remarkably resistant to change. I believe John Bolton could provide the medicine the United Nations needs. As I mentioned earlier, elections have consequences, and one consequence of President Bush's reelection is he actually should have the right to select officials of his choice. I stress this because the President nominates not the Democrats' selection, nor mine, nor that of any other Senator, but his own choice. I mentioned that when President Clinton was elected, I didn't share the policy views of some of the officials he nominated, but I voted to confirm them, knowing the President has a right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best. The Foreign Relations Committee is examining whether Mr. Bolton has engaged in truly unacceptable behavior that would disqualify him for office. I believe, unless we see a pattern of inappropriate conduct-- which so far I have not--I believe the Senate must move forward expeditiously to confirm John Bolton as America's ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. President, as I criticize some of the activities of the U.N., there are other activities of the U.N. going on as we speak that I think require America's presence. The situation in Darfur, Sudan, for example, is one that cries out for American participation in the decisionmaking process because one could draw a scenario where under extreme circumstances, to prevent genocide, American troops, or certainly American support in the form of logistics and other areas, could be heavily involved, as well as expenditure of American tax dollars, which already constitutes a significant portion of the financing of the United Nations. So I hope we can set a time and date certain for a vote on Mr. Bolton. As I said, if somebody has information that would disqualify him, that is fine. I don't think he or anybody else deserves a long, drawn-out, exhausting process which damages our ability to participate in the U.N. and also may damage the character of a good man. I hope we will act as expeditiously as possible. I have great respect for the Foreign Relations Committee and its chairman, Senator Lugar, all members, and the ranking member, Senator Biden. But I certainly hope they realize inordinate delay is not healthy. I, having had the opportunity of knowing Mr. Bolton for many years, believe he would do an outstanding job as our ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the senior Senator from Alaska concerning the qualifications of John Negroponte. Both the Senator from Alaska and I have known him for many years and his service is one of great distinction. I am confident he will receive the endorsement of an overwhelming majority of the Senate. Nomination of John Bolton

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Regulation of Indian Gaming. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, Salazar, and Feinstein in introducing legislation to restore and maintain our National Parks by the centennial anniversary of the National Park System in 2016. Heralding the establishment of the first National Parks, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, ``We have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune.'' And what a priceless fortune Americans enjoy--Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Tetons, Mt. Rushmore, the Everglades, and hundreds of other extraordinary national parks that grace our country. Hundreds of millions of families and visitors from all over the world have visited these parks for recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities as well as the sheer pleasure of being surrounded by their natural beauty or historical significance. Unfortunately, all of this public enjoyment and use coupled with the lack of adequate financial investment in our parks has left them in a state of disrepair and neglect. A multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog has cast a long shadow over the glory of our national park heritage. An annual operating deficit estimated at $600 million has further diminished the integrity of national park programs and facilities. The National Parks Centennial Act would allow all Americans to contribute to the restoration of the parks through the creation of a Centennial Fund with monies generated by a check-off box on federal tax returns. The funds collected will be directed to the priority maintenance and operation needs of the national parks to make them fiscally sound by 2016. What better way or time to demonstrate that ``we are worthy of the good fortune of our parks''? I commend the National Parks Conservation Association for promoting this sound and innovative approach to remedying the significant deterioration of our parks. A companion House bill has been introduced by Representatives Souder and Baird with solid bipartisan support. Surely this is legislation that we can all agree on and support. All of our lives have been enriched by our National Parks. This bill provides an opportunity to show our appreciation to restore and maintain our country's cultural and natural heritage for generations to come. The passage of this legislation will ensure that our national parks will have a glorious 100th birthday to celebrate. Let's get on with it!

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend, why don't we bring them up? If somebody objects, then I will object to other amendments being brought up, particularly ones that are this straightforward.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I happen to have been at the meeting that the Senator from Pennsylvania--whom I admire and respect enormously-- had with the Secretary of the Navy. I was so proud of the Secretary of the Navy because unequivocally the Secretary of the Navy said: No, we do not want this money, we do not have the technology, we do not have the design for this, this is not one of our requirements, and we do not want to spend $40 million in this fashion. It was as strong a statement as I have ever heard from the Secretary of the Navy. This is basically a $40 million giveaway of the taxpayers' dollars to a private corporation that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with it. The language of the bill says ``support'' high-speed military sealift and other military purposes. Maybe there are other military purposes. There is no design today for a high-speed military sealift. I wish there were. It is affordable. But the fact is that there is not. The fact is the Navy unequivocally said they do not want taxpayers' dollars, defense dollars, spent on this port in the city of Philadelphia, another legislative rider. This has nothing to do with Afghanistan, it has nothing to do with the tsunami, it has nothing to do with Iraq, and it has nothing to do with the Navy's requirements for a high-speed military sealift capability. This is really an egregious example of what happens in appropriations bills because there has never been a hearing before the Armed Services Committee nor any consideration in the Armed Services Committee of this particular request and would not be because it is not something we would rationally consider. But we put it on--$40 million worth on an appropriations at a time when the GAO says: If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. And Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says: It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address the competing claims. Which is our trade deficit as well as our burgeoning Federal deficit. We do not need to spend the $40 million. I appreciate the efforts Senator Specter has made, over many years, for the city of Philadelphia and the Navy yard. I can guarantee the Senator from Philadelphia that a lawsuit will probably hire some more lawyers. But if he thinks it is going to reverse a BRAC decision and reopen the Philadelphia Navy Shipyard as a naval shipyard, it will be one of the more fantastic outcomes in the history of the United States of America. Again, I respect his advocacy for the Port of Philadelphia. I respect his belief that somehow we are going to come up with a high-speed military sealift. That vision and view is not shared by the Armed Services Committee nor by the Secretary of the Navy nor the Secretary of Defense. I hope we will be able to pass this, and I am sure we probably will not. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not want to take any more of the body's time. I would point out this provision appeared in the conference report of the Omnibus appropriations bill, which meant I never had a chance to propose an amendment to strike that $40 million because it was in the conference report. It was never in the original omnibus which would have been--or Defense Appropriations Committee bill and considered on the floor of the Senate. So I had no opportunity. The Senator from Pennsylvania asked why we didn't object then. It is because I couldn't. I had an up-or-down vote on a bill that was ``that'' high. We had, I believe, less than 24 hours to act on that, much less read it. If there is any objection to me or consternation about me objecting to it now, I didn't have the opportunity to object to it because $40 million, along with tens of billions of dollars of pork, was stuffed in it last year in this egregious and outrageous process we have evolved into called the Omnibus appropriations bill, and this was stuck in it. I want to say again, it is not appropriate to designate ``by and for a Philadelphia-based company'' any money, any of our tax dollars. Our tax dollars should be competed for. With respect to the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, when he says ``the Navy agrees,'' of course the Navy agrees because it is there. But the Navy did not agree in a meeting the Senator from Pennsylvania and I had with the Secretary of the Navy, where they adamantly refused to agree to have this money spent because they have no fast ship even on the drawing boards, much less any that could be based in Philadelphia. We are going to pass this. I do not believe we can beat it. But now we are in the practice of designating a locality-based company to spend $40 million of American taxpayers' dollars. That is not right. I will bet there is expertise around the country--even if this were necessary--to be able to compete for this $40 million contract. But now we are designating it to the city of Philadelphia. I wonder if people out in the county might be able, or maybe someone in Pittsburgh might be able to compete for it. Probably not. This is a wrong way to legislate. In these times of burgeoning fiscal deficits, for us to designate money to be spent by a local-based company is just the wrong way to designate, and I think most Americans would agree. I do not intend to extend this debate any further. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. It was in last year's Omnibus appropriations bill, it was not in the Defense appropriations bill. It was not authorized in the Defense authorization bill. Let me tell you what is so egregious about it. In the appropriations bill, in the Omnibus appropriations bill, it says, blah, blah, blah: . . . for a grant to Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, to be used solely for the purpose of construction, by and for a Philadelphia-based company. . . . Here we are in an Omnibus appropriations bill we passed last year that not only designates $40 million that needs to be spent but without competition, without scrutiny, without examination: . . . by and for a Philadelphia-based company established to operate high-speed, advanced-design vessels for the transport of high-value, time-sensitive cargoes in the foreign commerce of the United States, of a marine cargo terminal and IT network for high-speed commercial vessels that is capable of supporting military sealift requirements. Last year, it was astonishing that we would put in an omnibus appropriation a requirement that $40 million be spent by and for a Philadelphia-based company. In other words, a company in Seattle or a company in Charleston or a company in Oklahoma, they couldn't compete for this. It had to be a Philadelphia-based company. What is it about Philadelphia-based companies that warrants them receiving a $40 million contract without competition from anybody else? I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, this is egregious. We should not be designating certain cities as a base for any company to compete for any contract of any kind. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware--I misspoke. This is the language in this bill designating it for a Philadelphia-based company. Designating it for a Philadelphia-based company is in this legislation before us. I hope that is clear.

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator have a response?