John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I do.

Mr. McCAIN. Two more.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I think amendments have been called up in the regular order. I ask the Senator why he would have reluctance to call up these amendments. If someone objects to it, then I will start objecting to the calling up of other amendments, if that is the way Members want the Senate to work. I understand this is a pretty straightforward amendment. The University of Hawaii's library is going to get $10 million for free on something that has nothing to do with Afghanistan, Iraq, the tsunami, or anything else. If somebody wants to object, I would like to inform my colleagues that we will start objecting to amendments being called up. It is a pretty straightforward amendment that strikes a $10 million earmark for the University of Hawaii library and the legislative rider for the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am obviously always glad to accommodate the most distinguished Member of the Senate from West Virginia. The emergency supplemental appropriations for Defense, the global war on terror, and tsunami relief for 2005 provides critical resources for our men and women in uniform and for our foremost foreign policy priorities. While I recognize the importance of its timely passage, I am concerned it includes a number of provisions that do not constitute ``emergency spending.'' These items clearly should be debated and funded under the regular order. Before I go further, I would like to congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for the hard work that he and his staff have done in putting together this very vital appropriations measure to pursue the war on terror and, of course, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We ought to ask a basic question: What is the purpose of emergency appropriations? It is twofold. First, it is supposed to provide funding for critical expenditures beyond what was anticipated in the President's annual budget request; second, it is supposed to pay for vital priorities that simply cannot wait until next year's budget. What are the common elements? The unexpected and the time sensitive. Simply put, the purpose of the supplemental appropriations bill is to fund our country's urgent and unanticipated needs. We have to consider this in the context of a couple of comments that have been made recently. At a conference in February, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said: If we are to 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: (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. He said it falls on Congress. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree we are in real trouble. We are in real trouble. Here is a radical idea for my colleagues to consider to help secure our economic future: Stop using scarce Federal dollars, taxpayers' dollars to fund unnecessary earmarks and all the other frivolous projects that do nothing to provide for the greater good of our Nation. A case in point of what this legislation is and should be all about is the urgent need of Balad Air Base in Iraq, a U.S. Army camp on the very front line of the war on terror. The service members who live there have nicknamed it ``Mortaritaville'' because of the frequency of insurgent mortar attacks. Balad is quickly becoming a hub for military operations in the Sunni Triangle and is home to more than 20,000 U.S. troops. As a result, the camp's infrastructure is becoming overwhelmed and requires more than $63 million to remain functional and effective. This camp needs emergency funding. The Department of Defense listed construction of a hospital facility, command and control buildings, and related equipment among its emergency needs for Balad, and appropriators in the House and Senate have rightly agreed to such funding. The DOD and our appropriators recognize these improvements to Balad are critical to our efforts in Iraq and the broader war on terror, and this is why we have an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund these types of needs. The bill includes many important provisions such as increased death benefits, military operational costs, recapitalization of equipment, and research and development associated with the war on terror to which I lend my strongest support. For example, this bill provides $1.285 billion in assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan; $5.7 billion for the security forces of Iraq; $227 million for counternarcotics activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and $44 million for humanitarian assistance in Darfur, Sudan. The foreign affairs provisions of this bill are remarkably free of pork. As one who supports ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent properly, I commend my colleagues and the chairman for their restraint in this area. Unfortunately, due to its ``must pass'' nature, a number of unauthorized provisions and funding not requested by the President and unrelated to defense or foreign affairs have been included in this bill, and literally hundreds of amendments have been attempted to be added to the bill. The administration's proposed definition of an emergency requirement is ``a necessary expenditure that is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent.'' We should do everything in our power to ensure this bill passes. But we must also ensure every item in it is of a true emergency nature. It is evident that some of my colleagues misunderstand the purpose of supplemental appropriations, and continue to seek to add spending to this bill that should be addressed as part of the regular appropriations process. In fact, there is an unmistakable trend turning emergency supplementals into a second budget request. Many programs that should be in the baseline budget are somehow finding their way into this supplemental. We must not allow this trend to continue--we must not allow the supplemental to become a de facto second budget. Let's look at a few examples of the kind of non-emergency spending that has found its way into this bill. There is $10 million for the University of Hawaii Library. I was unaware that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was also being fought at the University of Hawaii's library. There is $2.4 million to the Forest Service to repair damage to national forest lands--surely a necessary expense--but one that should be funded through the proper process, beginning with an authorization and testimony by officials from the Forest Service in a public hearing. There is $23 million to the Capitol Police for the construction of an ``off-site delivery facility.'' I'll be the first one around here to praise the U.S. Capitol police for the good work that they do--I am sure this facility is a high priority to them. But, again, let's provide funding for this through the proper process--public hearings, authorizing legislation, and the proper appropriations vehicle. There is language in the bill to increase authorized funds for a fish hatchery in Fort Peck, Montana, from $20 million to $25 million. I would like to know how a ``multi-species fish hatchery'' is related to the War on Terror. Does the author of such language believe the hatched fish may enlist in our armed forces? Was it requested by the President as an emergency need? No. Is this authorization related to the stated purpose of the supplemental? No. The bill also includes language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to analyze the viability of a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande Silvery Minnow is a stout silvery minnow with moderately small eyes and a small mouth. Adults minnows may reach 3.5 inches in total length. Perhaps the silvery minnow could enlist with the Fort Peck, MT fish. I will await the Secretary's study. The bill includes $500,000 for a study of wind energy in North Dakota and South Dakota. I believe we can all agree that this expenditure earmark is not urgent. In fact, I am not certain there is a need for a study as the wind energy potential in the Dakotas is well-established. And I don't know what it has to do with fighting the war on terror or aiding the tsunami disaster victims. Another $500,000 is earmarked to the University of Nevada Reno for the Oral History of the Negotiated Settlement project. I ask my colleagues, how is this useful to the war on terror? How is this an emergency need? No bill would be complete without several projects for the State of Alaska. The bill includes language that addresses how the Agriculture Department pays dairy farmers in Alaska. I certainly don't wish to neglect our Alaskan dairy farmers, but I cannot support prioritizing their payment issues over the needs of our soldiers. The bill includes $175,000 not requested by the President to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from the Christina River in Delaware. That particular vessel has been at the bottom of the Christina River for more than a decade, is not endangering commercial traffic on the river, and I am sure Congress can wait to fund its removal during the regular appropriations process. Another $55 million is earmarked for a wastewater treatment facility in Desoto County, MS. How exactly does this help the troops? Not only do I have concerns with some of the provisions the Appropriations Committee included in this bill, as I have highlighted, I am very troubled by some of the amendments being proposed. I am well aware that many of my colleagues--and their staffs--have expressed frustrations about my objections to their amendments. I have, and will continue, to object to adopting certain amendments by unanimous consent. This is an ``emergency supplemental''--its not a Christmas wish list. I frankly do not understand the managers willingness to agree to some of these proposals. Some of them sound reasonable, but who can be sure? That is why the President's request is so important-- it is thought out and designed to carry out specific objectives that are urgent and necessary. I do not particularly care for being in the position of ``bad cop'', but so be it. But I cannot agree to unanimous approval of amendments that appear more wishful and urgent. For example, $1 million for lobster disease in the northeast. I do not doubt that this may be a problem but it simply does not belong on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. There is legislation regarding State regulation of hunting and fishing. I support this concept, and even cosponsored a bill last year to reaffirm the authority of State governments to regulate their own hunting and fishing programs. But the simple fact remains that tacking this legislation onto a war-time emergency supplemental is both inappropriate and unnecessary. We can and should pass this bill through the regular legislative process. Tomorrow I will be joining with my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, in offering amendments to strike the most egregious, unnecessary, and non-emergency provisions from this bill. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to keep this important legislation free from non-essential, pork barrel projects. Let me close by noting that I appreciate the hard work of the Appropriations Committee and their staff. Field visits were conducted in Afghanistan and the Middle East as the Committee diligently researched the DoD's many requests pursuant to the war on terror. But I am concerned about their decision to include unnecessary, nonemergency earmarks in this bill and the accompanying report. When considering military construction projects like those in Balad, Iraq, consideration was taken to determine whether the project was truly of an emergency nature. Why did the Committee not apply the same consideration to the fish hatchery in Montana? As I mentioned, on tomorrow I have a couple of amendments we will be seeking votes on. I hope we realize we have a looming deficit, a trade deficit, and unanticipated expenses concerning the war in Iraq. There was one high-ranking Defense official at the time of the beginning of the war in Iraq who said the oil revenues would pay for United States expenses. We are now up to close to $300 billion and we are not yet able to reduce our forces. I think we ought to take into consideration the fact that we will have continued, very significant expenses associated with the conflict in Iraq and in Afghanistan before we begin appropriating money for fish hatcheries and for libraries. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from West Virginia for the purposes of proposing an amendment and then following that, I regain the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we all know, the recent Orange Revolution in Ukraine marked a huge victory for the advancement of democracy in the world. The Ukrainian people made clear that they would not stand idle as a corrupt regime sought to deny them their democratic rights. Now that the people of Ukraine have seized control of their destiny, the United States must stand ready to assist them as they do the hard work of consolidating democracy. The purpose of the amendment is to repeal the so-called and well- known Jackson-Vanik amendment, for it to be terminated with respect to Ukraine. At his appearance yesterday with President Viktor Yushchenko, President Bush pledged to seek the termination of Jackson-Vanik. In a White House statement yesterday, both Governments stated that they support ``immediately ending the application of Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine.'' We should all agree. This 31-year-old legislation is, with respect to Ukraine, now anachronistic and inappropriate. I am pleased to offer this amendment along with Senator DeWine. And I know there will be others. Specifically, this amendment would authorize the President to terminate the application of Jackson-Vanik, which is title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, to Ukraine. Ukraine would then be eligible to receive permanent normal trade relations tariff status in its trade with the United States. Several Members in the Senate and House have also introduced legislation to terminate Jackson-Vanik, and these bills in the Senate have been pending in the committee since the start of this session. I am hopeful that today the Senate will agree to adopt this amendment. Beyond any benefits to our bilateral trading relationship, lifting Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine constitutes an important symbol of Ukraine's new democracy and its relationship with the United States. In February, along with three other Senators and six representatives, I went to Kiev, where we met with President Yushchenko, Prime Minister Tymoshenko, and students who led protests in Independence Square. I was struck by the great enthusiasm for democracy and freedom that has taken hold in Ukraine, and I know we all wish the new leaders all the best as they begin the challenge of governing. I pledged to them that we would work toward the lifting of Jackson-Vanik on Ukraine, and today I am happy to move toward that end. Tomorrow, President Yushchenko will address a joint session of Congress, an honor which we bestow on few foreign leaders. As we have the privilege of welcoming this true hero of democracy, I can think of no better gesture than today terminating the anachronistic and inappropriate Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Ukraine. I note the presence of my most respected colleague, Senator Lugar, who has gained the respect and appreciation of all of us with his knowledge and expertise on issues of national security and foreign affairs and his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee. I hope he would see his way clear to have a look at this amendment, and I would obviously seek his support. Mr. President, we who follow events in that part of the world were thrilled at the Orange Revolution. We saw a flawed election that was repudiated by the people of Ukraine in a peaceful manner. It was one of the remarkable events in that part of the world. I remind my colleagues that Ukraine is a very pivotal and important country in its own right, one with a tragic history of bloodshed and sacrifice but also, when its geostrategic location is considered, a very important part of the world. Dr. Henry Kissinger once was quoted as saying: Russia with Ukraine is a Western power, without Ukraine is an Eastern power. I fully agree with our President's stated commitment yesterday for repeal of Jackson-Vanik as far as Ukraine is concerned. Jackson-Vanik was a very incredibly important tool in asserting our support and advocacy for human rights in then-Iron-Curtain countries. I think it is very clear that neither Senator Jackson nor Congressman Vanik envisioned this anachronistic provision to apply to a country that is now on the verge of a functioning democracy in a free and exuberant nation. I am told by my staff that somehow the chairman of the Finance Committee, or probably more likely one of his zealous staffers, has said they would object to this provision because of the fact there are certain problems with intellectual property or other reasons. I would hope that assertion of jurisdiction, or reluctance to approve of this, particularly in light of this particular moment, would disappear in light of the priorities that this repeal of Jackson-Vanik would send as a sign of strong support and advocacy for democracy and process of an open and free society which is obviously taking place in Ukraine. So if there is a problem that we have with Ukraine, I would think the President of the United States would have articulated those views in his meetings with President Yushchenko yesterday. And if the President had a problem, he certainly would not have come out after the meeting and advocated the repeal of Jackson-Vanik. Not many Americans even know what Jackson-Vanik is. But a whole lot of people in these countries that this law still applies to are very aware of it. I think it would not only be appropriate to send a signal with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik as far as Ukraine is concerned, but I think it would be a slap in the face to the new Ukrainian Government and people because some committee of the Senate asserted its jurisdiction at a time when we should be providing as much encouragement as we can to the process of democracy and freedom, which has exhilarated all of us as we watched this marvelous transformation take place. So I urge adoption of the amendment. I hope we can dispose of the amendment today. If the chairman of the Finance Committee or any of his staff would like to debate this issue, I would be more than happy to engage in that at their convenience and have a recorded vote, which I think would carry overwhelmingly in the Senate. I again recognize the leadership and dedicated hard work on this legislation by our distinguished and respected chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order that I may send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 113, a bill to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Salazar in introducing the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act. This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Chavez. Mr. Chavez's legacy is an inspiration to us all and he will be remembered for helping Americans to transcend distinctions of experience and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve appropriate sites that are significant to his life. Cesar Chavez, an Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. While his formal education ended in the eighth grade, his insatiable intellectual curiosity and determination helped make him known as one of the great American leaders for his successes in organizing migrant farm workers. His efforts on behalf of some of the most oppressed individuals in our society is an inspiration and through his work he made America a bigger and a better nation. While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender of worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. He gave a voice to those who had no voice. In his words, ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community . . . our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.'' This legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously during the last Congress, has received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my fellow Arizonans, but from Americans all across the Nation. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites significant to Chavez's life meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for future legislation that would then designate land for the appropriate sites to become historic landmarks. Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. His motto in life, ``si se puede'' or it can be done, epitomizes his life's work and continues to influence those wishing to improve our Nation. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Salazar in introducing the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act. This legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Chavez. Mr. Chavez's legacy is an inspiration to us all and he will be remembered for helping Americans to transcend distinctions of experience and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve appropriate sites that are significant to his life. Cesar Chavez, an Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. While his formal education ended in the eighth grade, his insatiable intellectual curiosity and determination helped make him known as one of the great American leaders for his successes in organizing migrant farm workers. His efforts on behalf of some of the most oppressed individuals in our society is an inspiration and through his work he made America a bigger and a better nation. While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender of worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. He gave a voice to those who had no voice. In his words, ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community . . . our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.'' This legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously during the last Congress, has received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my fellow Arizonans, but from Americans all across the Nation. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites significant to Chavez's life meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for future legislation that would then designate land for the appropriate sites to become historic landmarks. Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. His motto in life, ``si se puede'' or it can be done, epitomizes his life's work and continues to influence those wishing to improve our Nation. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, our Nation is facing very difficult fiscal realities which are only going to become more difficult and expensive the longer we wait to take action. The Federal Government can no longer afford ``business as usual.'' According to the GAO, the unfunded Federal financial burden for public debt, including future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. At what point do we listen to the wake up call? The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has recently warned Congress and the Nation that, ``In the end, the consequences for the U.S. economy of doing nothing could be severe. But the benefits of taking sound, timely action could extend many decades into the future.'' We must all work together to reduce the crippling $412 billion budget deficit and the mounting unfunded Federal financial burden. I commend the administration for submitting a budget request that proposes reduced funding for a number of programs. I clearly understand that every program is important to certain constituencies, and Medicaid is at the top of the list for many. The Medicaid program provides critical services to some of the most vulnerable people in our nation. In my home State of Arizona, we have an outstanding Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, that represents a model for other States. Unfortunately, not every state Administers its program as efficiently as Arizona. The reality is, Medicaid costs are skyrocketing out of control. It is time we took a long hard look at this program--as every other program for that matter and develop proposals to ensure that Medicaid will continue to serve the neediest Americans over the long term. Let me be clear. I do not support across the board cuts to the Medicaid program. In fact, I believe such an action could have a disastrous effect on many important efforts that ensure access to care for many Americans who have nowhere else to turn. Additionally, I recognize that cuts to Medicaid that result in reduction of covered individuals would flood hospital emergency rooms with additional uninsured patients, forcing hospitals to absorb additional cost for uncompensated care. Arizona has one of the highest uninsured populations in the country and a large number of undocumented immigrants, our hospitals are already struggling to absorb the cost of providing uncompensated care, dramatically reducing medicare eligible populations could severely impact the hospital system in my State and in many others. In debating potential cuts to the Medicaid program, we must work to ensure that the federal government does not further exacerbate these existing problems. Any effort to reform Medicaid must be made in a cautious and deliberative manner. We simply must start to control spending and make some very difficult decisions among competing priorities. I was pleased to have joined with Senators Smith and Bingaman in cosponsoring S. 338, the bipartisan commission on Medicaid Act of 2005, which was introduced on February 9, 2005. I cannot vote for the pending amendment because I believe strongly that the fiscal reality of Medicaid must be addressed sooner rather than later. And I have been around here long enough to know that too often we need to have our feet held to the fire to really make meaningful progress on difficult issues. So I hope that we can agree to cut waste in the Medicaid program and also create a bipartisan task force to provide recommendations for how best to reform the program for the long run. In my judgment, only through comprehensive reforms can we prevent across the board cuts in Medicaid in the long term. We should begin our reform efforts today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my strong support for the amendment by Senators Snowe and Wyden. Less than 2 years ago, Congress passed a massive expansion of our Nation's entitlement system, the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, which added costly prescription drug coverage to the Medicare Program. At that time, we were told that the new benefit would cost an estimated $400 billion over 10 years a figure many of us believed to be far lower than the actual cost. Today, the same package is estimated to cost between $534 billion to $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Those costs can only be expected to grow further. To add insult to injury, language was added to MMA which explicitly prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from engaging in negotiations directly with drug companies. This language was included deliberately, even though other departments in the Federal Government and State governors, under the Medicaid Program, have similar authorities. Prohibiting the Secretary of Health and Human Services from engaging in such negotiations is an offense against the American taxpayer. Earlier this year, I joined Senators Snowe and Wyden in introducing legislation which would amend the MMA and allow the Secretary to negotiate lower drug prices. The amendment we are debating now calls for those savings to be used for debt reduction a worthy goal given the massive burden we added to future generations through the passage of MMA. I voted against the passage of MMA because I believe we can no longer afford to flagrantly spend taxpayer dollars and saddle future generations with the enormous burden of these programs, the cost of which is spiraling out of control. With the passage of that package, we missed a great opportunity to enact reforms that would have helped to ensure the Medicare program's financial solvency. Congress has an obligation to remedy that mistake and the Snowe/Wyden amendment is a good first step. I strongly urge my colleagues to supporting this important amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation. Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated 20 national trails. This legislation is the first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation can be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail. The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the State, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, and developed urban areas, as well as remote and pristine wildlands. With over 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the Arizona Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross-country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers. I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in building a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long- distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to use and enjoy. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation. Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated 20 national trails. This legislation is the first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation can be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail. The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy. The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the State, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, and developed urban areas, as well as remote and pristine wildlands. With over 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the Arizona Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross-country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers. I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in building a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long- distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to use and enjoy. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Rick Renzi, in introducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and multiple-use needs. The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area. Mr. President, this legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Rick Renzi, in introducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and multiple-use needs. The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area. Mr. President, this legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005 to amend a variety of Federal statutes affecting Indian tribes and Indian people. This Act contains nineteen provisions, including technical amendments to several laws, extensions of expiring authorizations, and provisions relating to particular Indian tribes, and certain Native American programs. Section 101, amends the Indian finance act of 1974 to clarify that non-profit tribal entities are eligible for the BIA Loan Guaranty program. It also raises the limit on the amount of loans to $1.5 billion from $500 million. Section 102 extends the authorization for the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act to through fiscal year 2010. Section 103 extends the Indian Tribal Justice Act for three more years. Section 104 cures a problem specific to New Mexico and the 1924 Indian Pueblo Lands Act. Recently, the New Mexico State Court of Appeals ruled that a change from Indian to non-Indian title for a parcel of land within a Pueblo land grant area eliminated that parcel's status as ``Indian Country.'' This ruling created a jurisdictional void for criminal acts occurring on land within the original Pueblo land grant once its' title has changed. Consistent with existing law, this amendment clarifies that the state maintains jurisdiction over non-Indians, the tribe has jurisdiction over Indians and its members, and the federal government has jurisdiction pursuant to the Major Crimes Act. This amendment does not expand Indian civil jurisdiction and only applies to criminal jurisdiction. I understand that it is uniformly support by all affected parties. Section 105, conveys approximately 1290 acres of the Lock and Dam #3 lands to the Prairie Island Tribe. The provision prohibits gaming or structures for human habitation on the conveyed lands. Section 106 is a technical amendment to allow binding arbitration in all contracts and not just leases on the Gila River Indian Community reservation. Section 107 conveys several parcels of land in the State of Washington to be held in trust for Puyallup Indian Tribes. Section 108 amends Native American graves Protection and Repatriation Act by clarifying that the term ``Native American'' refers to a member of a tribe, a people, or a culture that is or was indigenous to the United States. Section 109, the amends the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe's water rights settlement act to permit the expenditure of six percent of the average market value of the Fund over three years. Section 110, the Washoe Tribes Lake Tahoe Access Act, corrects the 1990 settlement and includes 24.3 acres of land near Lake Tahoe for the Tribes. The amendment does not affect the number of acres conveyed to the Tribe in the original settlement. Section 111 amends the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. A major source of tribal and individual income comes from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts, but millions of dollars are diverted each year from these artists and tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Enforcing the criminal law that prohibits the sale of Indian arts and crafts misrepresented as an Indian product is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes on Indian lands. This amendment supplements the existing federal investigative authority by authorizing other federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA, in addition to the FBI, to investigate these offenses. Section 112, the Colorado River Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act, corrects the south boundary of the Reservation by reestablishing the boundary as it was delineated in the original survey. Section 113, reauthorizes the Native American Programs Act of 1974 and establishes the Inter-Departmental Council of Native American Affairs. Section 114 amends the Native Hawaiian Education Act to include research and education activities relating to Native Hawaiian law. Section 121 amends the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act to include the registration of Indian students in the Spring semester. Section 122, the Native Nations Leadership, Management and Policy Act of 2005 authorizes funding for leadership training, strategic and organizational development, and research and policy analysis to assist American Indian nations to achieve effective self-governance and sustainable economic development. This provision renews authorized funding for NNI's programs for a period of 10 years, beginning in fiscal year 2007. Dedicated funding for NNI is necessary to ensure the continuation of these important programs without further draining funds from the Udall Foundation's other educational activities. Section 132 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a pilot program to enhance an Indian tribe's response to border activity. Some Indian tribes that inhabit land on or easily accessible to the United States and Canada or Mexico, bear extraordinary costs in responding to illegal immigration crossing and drug smuggling and almost always divert funds intended for local services to do so. While Federal and State law enforcement resources may supplement tribal efforts, tribal police, fire and emergency services provide the first and often only response because of their access to the border. A tribe's proximity to the border and its responsibility to the community for public safety and welfare, requires that they respond. This program would enhance tribal first responder capabilities, provide assistance for aerial and ground surveillance technologies, and communication capabilities, and facilitate coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal governments in protecting the border. The Secretary may establish the selection criteria for participation in the program including the tribes' proximity to the border and the extent to which border crossing activity impacts existing tribal resources. Section 201, Authorization of 99 year leases, amends Title 25 USC Section 415 providing for leases of restricted lands by adding several additional tribes to the list of tribes that have requested 99-year lease authority. Section 202, Certification of rental proceeds, amends Title 25 USC Section 488 to permit actual rental proceeds from a lease to constitute the rental value of that land, and to satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land. Section 211, will permit the Navajo Nation's Sage Memorial Hospital to be considered a tribal contractor under the Indian Self- Determination Act, which will allow the hospital to obtain the benefits of coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act and secure VA drug discounts. Section 221, amends the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 by correcting provisions relating to non-testamentary disposition, partition of highly fractionated Indian land, and Tribal probate codes. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact 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 am pleased to introduce the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005 to amend a variety of Federal statutes affecting Indian tribes and Indian people. This Act contains nineteen provisions, including technical amendments to several laws, extensions of expiring authorizations, and provisions relating to particular Indian tribes, and certain Native American programs. Section 101, amends the Indian finance act of 1974 to clarify that non-profit tribal entities are eligible for the BIA Loan Guaranty program. It also raises the limit on the amount of loans to $1.5 billion from $500 million. Section 102 extends the authorization for the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act to through fiscal year 2010. Section 103 extends the Indian Tribal Justice Act for three more years. Section 104 cures a problem specific to New Mexico and the 1924 Indian Pueblo Lands Act. Recently, the New Mexico State Court of Appeals ruled that a change from Indian to non-Indian title for a parcel of land within a Pueblo land grant area eliminated that parcel's status as ``Indian Country.'' This ruling created a jurisdictional void for criminal acts occurring on land within the original Pueblo land grant once its' title has changed. Consistent with existing law, this amendment clarifies that the state maintains jurisdiction over non-Indians, the tribe has jurisdiction over Indians and its members, and the federal government has jurisdiction pursuant to the Major Crimes Act. This amendment does not expand Indian civil jurisdiction and only applies to criminal jurisdiction. I understand that it is uniformly support by all affected parties. Section 105, conveys approximately 1290 acres of the Lock and Dam #3 lands to the Prairie Island Tribe. The provision prohibits gaming or structures for human habitation on the conveyed lands. Section 106 is a technical amendment to allow binding arbitration in all contracts and not just leases on the Gila River Indian Community reservation. Section 107 conveys several parcels of land in the State of Washington to be held in trust for Puyallup Indian Tribes. Section 108 amends Native American graves Protection and Repatriation Act by clarifying that the term ``Native American'' refers to a member of a tribe, a people, or a culture that is or was indigenous to the United States. Section 109, the amends the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe's water rights settlement act to permit the expenditure of six percent of the average market value of the Fund over three years. Section 110, the Washoe Tribes Lake Tahoe Access Act, corrects the 1990 settlement and includes 24.3 acres of land near Lake Tahoe for the Tribes. The amendment does not affect the number of acres conveyed to the Tribe in the original settlement. Section 111 amends the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. A major source of tribal and individual income comes from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts, but millions of dollars are diverted each year from these artists and tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Enforcing the criminal law that prohibits the sale of Indian arts and crafts misrepresented as an Indian product is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes on Indian lands. This amendment supplements the existing federal investigative authority by authorizing other federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA, in addition to the FBI, to investigate these offenses. Section 112, the Colorado River Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act, corrects the south boundary of the Reservation by reestablishing the boundary as it was delineated in the original survey. Section 113, reauthorizes the Native American Programs Act of 1974 and establishes the Inter-Departmental Council of Native American Affairs. Section 114 amends the Native Hawaiian Education Act to include research and education activities relating to Native Hawaiian law. Section 121 amends the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act to include the registration of Indian students in the Spring semester. Section 122, the Native Nations Leadership, Management and Policy Act of 2005 authorizes funding for leadership training, strategic and organizational development, and research and policy analysis to assist American Indian nations to achieve effective self-governance and sustainable economic development. This provision renews authorized funding for NNI's programs for a period of 10 years, beginning in fiscal year 2007. Dedicated funding for NNI is necessary to ensure the continuation of these important programs without further draining funds from the Udall Foundation's other educational activities. Section 132 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a pilot program to enhance an Indian tribe's response to border activity. Some Indian tribes that inhabit land on or easily accessible to the United States and Canada or Mexico, bear extraordinary costs in responding to illegal immigration crossing and drug smuggling and almost always divert funds intended for local services to do so. While Federal and State law enforcement resources may supplement tribal efforts, tribal police, fire and emergency services provide the first and often only response because of their access to the border. A tribe's proximity to the border and its responsibility to the community for public safety and welfare, requires that they respond. This program would enhance tribal first responder capabilities, provide assistance for aerial and ground surveillance technologies, and communication capabilities, and facilitate coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal governments in protecting the border. The Secretary may establish the selection criteria for participation in the program including the tribes' proximity to the border and the extent to which border crossing activity impacts existing tribal resources. Section 201, Authorization of 99 year leases, amends Title 25 USC Section 415 providing for leases of restricted lands by adding several additional tribes to the list of tribes that have requested 99-year lease authority. Section 202, Certification of rental proceeds, amends Title 25 USC Section 488 to permit actual rental proceeds from a lease to constitute the rental value of that land, and to satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land. Section 211, will permit the Navajo Nation's Sage Memorial Hospital to be considered a tribal contractor under the Indian Self- Determination Act, which will allow the hospital to obtain the benefits of coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act and secure VA drug discounts. Section 221, amends the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 by correcting provisions relating to non-testamentary disposition, partition of highly fractionated Indian land, and Tribal probate codes. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the recent ``Orange Revolution'' in Ukraine marked a huge victory for the advancement of democracy in the world. The Ukrainian people made clear that they would not stand idle as a corrupt regime sought to deny them their democratic rights. Now that the people of Ukraine have seized control of their destiny, the United States must stand ready to assist them as they do the hard work of consolidating democracy. The Jackson-Vanik amendment is, with respect to Ukraine, now anachronistic and inappropriate. Therefore, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would terminate it. The bill would authorize the President to terminate the application of Jackson-Vanik, Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, to Ukraine. Ukraine would then be eligible to receive permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) tariff status in its trade with the United States. I am pleased to note that Representatives Hyde and Lantos will be introducing an identical bill in the House. Beyond any benefits to our bilateral trading relationship, lifting Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine constitutes an important symbol of Ukraine's new democracy and its relationship with the United States. I led a delegation of four Senators and six representatives to Kiev last week; where we met with President Yuschenko, Prime Minister Tymoshenko, and students who led protests in Independence Square. I was struck by the great enthusiasm for democracy and freedom that has taken hold in Ukraine, and I wish the new leaders all the best a they begin the challenge of governing. I pledged to them that I would work toward the lifting of Jackson-Vanik on Ukraine, and today I am happy to take the first step toward that end.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the recent ``Orange Revolution'' in Ukraine marked a huge victory for the advancement of democracy in the world. The Ukrainian people made clear that they would not stand idle as a corrupt regime sought to deny them their democratic rights. Now that the people of Ukraine have seized control of their destiny, the United States must stand ready to assist them as they do the hard work of consolidating democracy. The Jackson-Vanik amendment is, with respect to Ukraine, now anachronistic and inappropriate. Therefore, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would terminate it. The bill would authorize the President to terminate the application of Jackson-Vanik, Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, to Ukraine. Ukraine would then be eligible to receive permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) tariff status in its trade with the United States. I am pleased to note that Representatives Hyde and Lantos will be introducing an identical bill in the House. Beyond any benefits to our bilateral trading relationship, lifting Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine constitutes an important symbol of Ukraine's new democracy and its relationship with the United States. I led a delegation of four Senators and six representatives to Kiev last week; where we met with President Yuschenko, Prime Minister Tymoshenko, and students who led protests in Independence Square. I was struck by the great enthusiasm for democracy and freedom that has taken hold in Ukraine, and I wish the new leaders all the best a they begin the challenge of governing. I pledged to them that I would work toward the lifting of Jackson-Vanik on Ukraine, and today I am happy to take the first step toward that end.