John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to serve as the basis for much needed reforms to the Federal Government's management of Indian trust funds and trust assets within the U.S. Department of the Interior. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Daschle and Johnson, in this effort, as well as by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall whom are sponsoring a companion measure in the House of Representatives. This legislation is a reflection of a continuing effort by my colleagues and myself to develop a trust reform proposal that will not only serve to improve the Federal Government's administration and management of Indian trust funds and trust assets but it will also institute a role for Indian tribes to participate in developing additional needed reforms and enhance the principles of tribal self- determination. Earlier this year, Senators Daschle, Johnson, and myself introduced similar trust reform legislation and received substantive feedback from Indian country on the bill. This feedback helped us in developing this new legislative proposal, which will serve as the framework for instituting broader reforms necessary for long-term management of tribal trust resources and enhancing Federal Indian policy. I thank the tribes and tribal organizations such as the Inter Tribal Monitoring Association, the Native American Rights Fund, and the National Congress of American Indians, which worked with our offices and helped to formulate the concepts embodied in this proposal. We are encouraged by their efforts and support to seek a legislative remedy to these difficult problems. The basic elements of this bill focus on three primary areas: the management of trust funds and trust assets will be elevated in the overall Department by designating a Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs to assume the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs and the Special Trustee. Second, as determined by the court and the administration, it is Congress' duty to affirm fiduciary standards for proper management of these trust funds and trust assets, and this bill includes such standards. And, third, the role of the tribes is enhanced through affirmation of the authority of tribes to utilize self-determination laws to manage their own funds and assets. Tribes will also be engaged in determining additional necessary reforms through participation in an established congressional commission. The mismanagement of Indian trust funds is a long and disgraceful chapter in the history of this Nation. The 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act was enacted to take measures to reconcile these accounts and return the money to the Native American beneficiaries. Unfortunately, as continuing management problems persist and Native Americans are left out of the decision-making process about the management of their resources, it is time for Congress to step up and take decisive action to once again require significant reform with the active participation of the tribes. I am pleased that Senators Daschle and Johnson are committed to working with me once again on this legislation, and I am also encouraged by the interest of our House counterparts to jointly introduce this bill with us. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the tribes to advance this legislation. We are willing to consider additional review and comments and expect to further refine this bill as it moves through the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, our Nation awoke to the realization that we are not as safe as we once believed. Soon after, we began critical efforts to improve our homeland security. Those efforts remain ongoing today. As we work to improve the security of our homeland, securing our borders remains one of the most difficult and important challenges facing our Nation today. The simple fact is, our borders are not secure, and no amount of money, equipment, or manpower alone will not ensure the safety of our Nation. Over the past several years, I have supported many efforts to improve border security and address the repercussions of poor enforcement and failed immigration policies. It is imperative that we not shirk from what are Federal responsibilities. We must address the many unfunded mandates born by States and local communities because control of immigration is principally the responsibility of the Federal Government. We must continue efforts designed to improve infrastructure and technology at and between our ports of entry as well as enhance coordination between Federal, State and local law enforcement personnel. However, without comprehensive immigration reform, all of these efforts will be ineffective and meaningless. In order to address these concerns and to balance the need to secure our borders while addressing the inconsistencies and contradictions of our Nation's immigration policy, I am introducing the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act. This bill is the first comprehensive immigration reform package introduced this Congress, and I hope that it will serve to initiate an important and necessary dialog so that we may address the security needs of our country and reform our failed immigration system. The Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act establishes two new visa programs. One addresses individuals wishing to enter the United States to work on a short-term basis while the other will be available for the undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S. Fully cognizant of the failures and abuses of previous temporary worker programs, I am committed to ensuring that this new program prevents abuse and protects the rights of workers. Important protections are built into the new visa program. Complete portability across all sectors will allow workers the freedom to leave abusive employers and seek work elsewhere. This program would allow employers to immediately apply for permanent resident status on behalf of the employee, but unlike previous programs, this bill would allow workers self-petition after 3 years so that no employer could use residency status to manipulate and abuse any worker. Additionally, all U.S. labor laws are applicable to ensure full worker protection. In another departure from previous visa programs, this legislation does not put a finite number on the available visas, rather it is designed to allow the market to dictate the need for workers. Through the establishment of a job registry system, U.S. employers in need of workers can post available jobs on this registry. To ensure that U.S. workers do not lose out on valuable job opportunities, each job posted on the registry must be available to U.S. workers for a minimum of 14 days before it is open to a foreign worker. Additionally, to ensure that we do not incentivize employers to look abroad for labor that is less expensive than the domestic workforce, all employers will be charged a fee for the worker's visa. The second visa program included in this bill addresses the estimated 6 to 10 million people currently residing in the United States. Today, undocumented immigrants live in constant fear, in a shadowy underground that affords them limited opportunities and frequently leads to both exploitation and abuse. Establishing a process by which this population can voluntarily come forward and seek legal status is a necessary component to comprehensive immigration reform and ensuring the safety of our Nation. Under this bill, every undocumented individual currently residing in the U.S. will have the opportunity to obtain a visa authorizing them to remain in the United States and work for 3 years, after which time they may apply for the temporary worker visa program which has a built in path to permanent legal residency. Every year, millions of people enter this country legally, in a monitored and controlled manner. Although a majority enter legally, an increasing number of people risk their lives to cross our borders illegally. According to the U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, it is estimated that almost 4 million people crossed our borders illegally in 2002. The majority of these people are seeking the American dream, looking for a good paying job that will enable them to provide a better life for themselves and their families. We must recognize that as long as there are jobs available and employers in need of workers, people will continue to migrate. Our Nation was built by immigrants, and like those who came hundreds of years ago, this population represents a significant portion of our workforce. In recent years, improved security and enhanced infrastructure in California and Texas have created a funneling effect through the Sonoran desert, which straddles Arizona and the Mexican State of Sonora. This is easily the most treacherous portion of the southern border, and in recent years, it has become more dangerous. Last fiscal year, an estimated 320 people died crossing the southern border into this country, 145 of those deaths were in the Arizona desert. Since last October, over 200 people have died, 113 along the Arizona border. The Arizona Republic found that undocumented immigrants are seven times as likely to die crossing the Arizona-Mexico border now than they were 5 years ago. Many people desperate to cross the border pay large sums of money to human smugglers who guarantee their entrance into the U.S. Our Nation witnessed the extreme danger of human smugglers first hand in May when 100 people were found packed into a tractor trailer truck at a truck stop in Victoria, TX. These people, abandoned by their smugglers, were trapped for hours in the extreme desert heat. Nineteen people died as a result. These are not merely numbers, these figures represent men, women, and children. This unnecessary loss of human life deserves our Nation's attention and should compel all of us to action. Our current border and immigration policies create a contradictory situation whereby we attempt to keep people from crossing our borders illegally but reward those who survive the dangerous journey with bountiful employment opportunities. This system is not sustainable. In addition to the human tragedy, this mass migration also represents a threat to our national security. Although over 99 percent of the people crossing our borders do not intend to harm Americans, we must be cognizant of the fact that a small number do. As long as we are unable to control and monitor who enters our country and what they bring in, Americans will not be safe. We must establish a system by which to allow people seeking work to enter the country in a safe manner, through controlled ports of entry--freeing up Federal agents to monitor the border and focus their efforts on the individuals who do pose a potential threat to our national security. We can no longer afford to bury our heads in the sand and expect this problem to go away. Anyone who has visited the border and seen the challenges we face first hand or who hears of the number of unnecessary deaths, must recognize that we can no longer ignore this problem. It is time we dispense with partisan politics and put human lives and our national security above special interest groups. I hold no illusions. Reforming our Nation's immigration laws will not be an easy task. This will be a long and arduous process, however we must not let the difficulty dissuade us from trying, and this legislation represents a meaningful first step. I am committed to this issue and to working towards a balanced solution to this crisis. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to serve as the basis for much needed reforms to the Federal Government's management of Indian trust funds and trust assets within the U.S. Department of the Interior. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Daschle and Johnson, in this effort, as well as by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall whom are sponsoring a companion measure in the House of Representatives. This legislation is a reflection of a continuing effort by my colleagues and myself to develop a trust reform proposal that will not only serve to improve the Federal Government's administration and management of Indian trust funds and trust assets but it will also institute a role for Indian tribes to participate in developing additional needed reforms and enhance the principles of tribal self- determination. Earlier this year, Senators Daschle, Johnson, and myself introduced similar trust reform legislation and received substantive feedback from Indian country on the bill. This feedback helped us in developing this new legislative proposal, which will serve as the framework for instituting broader reforms necessary for long-term management of tribal trust resources and enhancing Federal Indian policy. I thank the tribes and tribal organizations such as the Inter Tribal Monitoring Association, the Native American Rights Fund, and the National Congress of American Indians, which worked with our offices and helped to formulate the concepts embodied in this proposal. We are encouraged by their efforts and support to seek a legislative remedy to these difficult problems. The basic elements of this bill focus on three primary areas: the management of trust funds and trust assets will be elevated in the overall Department by designating a Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs to assume the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs and the Special Trustee. Second, as determined by the court and the administration, it is Congress' duty to affirm fiduciary standards for proper management of these trust funds and trust assets, and this bill includes such standards. And, third, the role of the tribes is enhanced through affirmation of the authority of tribes to utilize self-determination laws to manage their own funds and assets. Tribes will also be engaged in determining additional necessary reforms through participation in an established congressional commission. The mismanagement of Indian trust funds is a long and disgraceful chapter in the history of this Nation. The 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act was enacted to take measures to reconcile these accounts and return the money to the Native American beneficiaries. Unfortunately, as continuing management problems persist and Native Americans are left out of the decision-making process about the management of their resources, it is time for Congress to step up and take decisive action to once again require significant reform with the active participation of the tribes. I am pleased that Senators Daschle and Johnson are committed to working with me once again on this legislation, and I am also encouraged by the interest of our House counterparts to jointly introduce this bill with us. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the tribes to advance this legislation. We are willing to consider additional review and comments and expect to further refine this bill as it moves through the legislative process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. McCAIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 1461 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, our Nation awoke to the realization that we are not as safe as we once believed. Soon after, we began critical efforts to improve our homeland security. Those efforts remain ongoing today. As we work to improve the security of our homeland, securing our borders remains one of the most difficult and important challenges facing our Nation today. The simple fact is, our borders are not secure, and no amount of money, equipment, or manpower alone will not ensure the safety of our Nation. Over the past several years, I have supported many efforts to improve border security and address the repercussions of poor enforcement and failed immigration policies. It is imperative that we not shirk from what are Federal responsibilities. We must address the many unfunded mandates born by States and local communities because control of immigration is principally the responsibility of the Federal Government. We must continue efforts designed to improve infrastructure and technology at and between our ports of entry as well as enhance coordination between Federal, State and local law enforcement personnel. However, without comprehensive immigration reform, all of these efforts will be ineffective and meaningless. In order to address these concerns and to balance the need to secure our borders while addressing the inconsistencies and contradictions of our Nation's immigration policy, I am introducing the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act. This bill is the first comprehensive immigration reform package introduced this Congress, and I hope that it will serve to initiate an important and necessary dialog so that we may address the security needs of our country and reform our failed immigration system. The Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act establishes two new visa programs. One addresses individuals wishing to enter the United States to work on a short-term basis while the other will be available for the undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S. Fully cognizant of the failures and abuses of previous temporary worker programs, I am committed to ensuring that this new program prevents abuse and protects the rights of workers. Important protections are built into the new visa program. Complete portability across all sectors will allow workers the freedom to leave abusive employers and seek work elsewhere. This program would allow employers to immediately apply for permanent resident status on behalf of the employee, but unlike previous programs, this bill would allow workers self-petition after 3 years so that no employer could use residency status to manipulate and abuse any worker. Additionally, all U.S. labor laws are applicable to ensure full worker protection. In another departure from previous visa programs, this legislation does not put a finite number on the available visas, rather it is designed to allow the market to dictate the need for workers. Through the establishment of a job registry system, U.S. employers in need of workers can post available jobs on this registry. To ensure that U.S. workers do not lose out on valuable job opportunities, each job posted on the registry must be available to U.S. workers for a minimum of 14 days before it is open to a foreign worker. Additionally, to ensure that we do not incentivize employers to look abroad for labor that is less expensive than the domestic workforce, all employers will be charged a fee for the worker's visa. The second visa program included in this bill addresses the estimated 6 to 10 million people currently residing in the United States. Today, undocumented immigrants live in constant fear, in a shadowy underground that affords them limited opportunities and frequently leads to both exploitation and abuse. Establishing a process by which this population can voluntarily come forward and seek legal status is a necessary component to comprehensive immigration reform and ensuring the safety of our Nation. Under this bill, every undocumented individual currently residing in the U.S. will have the opportunity to obtain a visa authorizing them to remain in the United States and work for 3 years, after which time they may apply for the temporary worker visa program which has a built in path to permanent legal residency. Every year, millions of people enter this country legally, in a monitored and controlled manner. Although a majority enter legally, an increasing number of people risk their lives to cross our borders illegally. According to the U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, it is estimated that almost 4 million people crossed our borders illegally in 2002. The majority of these people are seeking the American dream, looking for a good paying job that will enable them to provide a better life for themselves and their families. We must recognize that as long as there are jobs available and employers in need of workers, people will continue to migrate. Our Nation was built by immigrants, and like those who came hundreds of years ago, this population represents a significant portion of our workforce. In recent years, improved security and enhanced infrastructure in California and Texas have created a funneling effect through the Sonoran desert, which straddles Arizona and the Mexican State of Sonora. This is easily the most treacherous portion of the southern border, and in recent years, it has become more dangerous. Last fiscal year, an estimated 320 people died crossing the southern border into this country, 145 of those deaths were in the Arizona desert. Since last October, over 200 people have died, 113 along the Arizona border. The Arizona Republic found that undocumented immigrants are seven times as likely to die crossing the Arizona-Mexico border now than they were 5 years ago. Many people desperate to cross the border pay large sums of money to human smugglers who guarantee their entrance into the U.S. Our Nation witnessed the extreme danger of human smugglers first hand in May when 100 people were found packed into a tractor trailer truck at a truck stop in Victoria, TX. These people, abandoned by their smugglers, were trapped for hours in the extreme desert heat. Nineteen people died as a result. These are not merely numbers, these figures represent men, women, and children. This unnecessary loss of human life deserves our Nation's attention and should compel all of us to action. Our current border and immigration policies create a contradictory situation whereby we attempt to keep people from crossing our borders illegally but reward those who survive the dangerous journey with bountiful employment opportunities. This system is not sustainable. In addition to the human tragedy, this mass migration also represents a threat to our national security. Although over 99 percent of the people crossing our borders do not intend to harm Americans, we must be cognizant of the fact that a small number do. As long as we are unable to control and monitor who enters our country and what they bring in, Americans will not be safe. We must establish a system by which to allow people seeking work to enter the country in a safe manner, through controlled ports of entry--freeing up Federal agents to monitor the border and focus their efforts on the individuals who do pose a potential threat to our national security. We can no longer afford to bury our heads in the sand and expect this problem to go away. Anyone who has visited the border and seen the challenges we face first hand or who hears of the number of unnecessary deaths, must recognize that we can no longer ignore this problem. It is time we dispense with partisan politics and put human lives and our national security above special interest groups. I hold no illusions. Reforming our Nation's immigration laws will not be an easy task. This will be a long and arduous process, however we must not let the difficulty dissuade us from trying, and this legislation represents a meaningful first step. I am committed to this issue and to working towards a balanced solution to this crisis. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as with every appropriations bill, I come to the floor of the Senate to speak about the objectionable provisions that are often hidden in the text of the legislation. Just last week, I spoke at length about all the wasteful spending in this year's Defense Appropriations Act. However, I must commend the Appropriations Committee--especially the distinguished Senator from Mississippi--for their efforts in reporting out of committee a Homeland Security bill with minimal earmarks or unrequested spending. Seeing as this is the first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill, I am very encouraged that my friends on the Appropriations Committee resisted the urge to load this legislation with unrequested spending. I urge my colleagues to ensure the bill remains this way as it progresses through conference. The Department of Homeland Security plays a crucial role in our Nation's defense. In no place is the role of our Department of Homeland Security more vital than in protecting our Nation's borders. Waves of undocumented immigrants still cross the border daily, leaving a trail of death and destruction in their wake. Those who survive the journey place enormous strains on the residents of Arizona and other border States. All aspects of life for the residents of Arizona are affected by costs of illegal immigration. The situation has gotten so desperate along the border, a group of citizens has resorted to vigilante actions to defend the borders because they believe the Federal Government has failed them. While I believe the actions of these groups are dangerous, they illustrate the dire situation faced by the residents of Arizona. It is vital that we continue to increase resources, particularly manpower and improve the technology along our borders. I am particularly encouraged by the development of new technologies such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs, which may prove extremely useful in patrolling the areas between our ports of entry. This bill provides much-needed funding for our Nation's borders. However, money alone will not solve this problem. The militarization of our borders is not the answer. As long as there are better paying jobs in the United States, there will be a steady supply of people coming into this Nation looking for work. Legal immigration plays an important role in contributing to the economic growth and prosperity of our Nation. Our Nation's tradition of legal immigration must be respected while the Federal Government works to solve the problems along the border. One solution to the problem that will address our Nation's national security needs and prevent further deaths in the Arizona desert is to enact comprehensive immigration reform. This is not just an issue that affects those residing in border States, it affects all Americans. We must work together to address this situation. Despite the overall lack of objectionable provisions in this legislation, I would like to express my concern about the committee's decision to move funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant, FIRE grant program, from the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate to the Office for Domestic Preparedness. As the chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I am familiar with the success of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. FIRE grants are made directly to local jurisdictions after their applications undergo a competitive, merit- based process. FIRE grant recipients use such funds to help meet their basic needs for equipment and training to respond to ``all-hazards,'' including wildfires, tornadoes, floods, and structural fires--not just antiterrorism efforts. I am concerned that the Office for Domestic Preparedness, ODP, has no experience with the basic needs of firefighters or administering a program like the FIRE grant program. I wish to acknowledge that the administration's budget submission seeks to move this grant program over to ODP, while promising to administer the grant program in a manner similar to that which is done now, with an interest in ensuring that there is one-stop shopping and better coordination for emergency preparedness grants. I understand that goal and am more than willing to work with my colleagues to ensure better coordination of our emergency preparedness efforts. In fact, just last month, the Commerce Committee reported legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration and improve coordination and training for first responders. That legislation is the appropriate vehicle to consider any programmatic changes, instead of this or any other appropriations bill. I am also disappointed that the Senate choose to accept a ``Buy America'' provision by voice vote. I firmly object to all ``Buy America'' restrictions, as represent prime examples of protectionist trade policy. I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners. Buy America'' provisions cost our Department of Defense over $5.5 billion each year, I do not want to see the same problems arise with the Department of Homeland Security. I urge the removal of this provision during the House-Senate conference. Once again, I thank the appropriators for their diligence in passing a relatively clean homeland security appropriations bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the objectionable provisions I have found in this legislation be printed in the Record. I hope that this continues with future appropriations.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, recognizing that the communities along our Nation's border are literally our front line of defense, it is in the interest of our national security to ensure that these areas are well equipped to respond to health emergencies and potential bioterror attacks. To address the critical needs of this vulnerable region, I am pleased to once again join my good friends from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn, in introducing the Border Health Security Act of 2003. Ten years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a bill which we believed represented a first step toward addressing the many health challenges confronting the U.S.-Mexico border region as it faced growing population and an expanding industrial base. The United States- Mexico Border Health Commission Act authorized the President to enter into a bilateral agreement with Mexico and establish a binational commission on border health, and was signed into law in the fall of 1994. Six years later the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Health of Mexico signed an agreement creating the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. Although still in its infancy, the Commission serves to draw attention to the unique needs of the border region, while improving and protecting the health and well- being of the residents on both sides of the border. The bill we are introducing today builds upon the effort we began 10 years ago. This legislation authorizes two new grant programs targeting health care and bioterror preparedness in the border area in addition to funding for the Commission. The first grant program we establish, the Border Health Grants, will be competitively awarded to programs that improve health care infrastructure or address the unique health care needs of the border region. Eligible programs could address health disparities, public health, maternal and child health, and conditions with a high prevalence in the border area. Acknowledging our national vulnerability in the wake of September 11 attacks and the need to ensure that bioterror efforts are specifically focused on the border region, our bill establishes bioterror preparedness grants for activities including coordination of bioterror and emergency preparedness, improvements in infrastructure, and education and training. The communities along our Nation's southern border typically have high rates of uninsured and underinsured individuals, unemployment, and poverty. This region also has higher rates of infections and chronic diseases, often exacerbated by migrant populations. Compounding these problems is the lack of health care facilities and qualified health care professionals. According to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, if the border area were a state, it would rank last in access in health care, second in death rates due to hepatitis, third in deaths related to diabetes, first in number of TB cases and last in per capita income. I have long supported legislative initiatives aimed at improving the security and quality of life in our border area. This bill is a part of that ongoing effort. As our Nation enters a new era of heightened national alert, it is incumbent upon us to ensure our border area--our front line of defense--is strenghtened and protected.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, recognizing that the communities along our Nation's border are literally our front line of defense, it is in the interest of our national security to ensure that these areas are well equipped to respond to health emergencies and potential bioterror attacks. To address the critical needs of this vulnerable region, I am pleased to once again join my good friends from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn, in introducing the Border Health Security Act of 2003. Ten years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a bill which we believed represented a first step toward addressing the many health challenges confronting the U.S.-Mexico border region as it faced growing population and an expanding industrial base. The United States- Mexico Border Health Commission Act authorized the President to enter into a bilateral agreement with Mexico and establish a binational commission on border health, and was signed into law in the fall of 1994. Six years later the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Health of Mexico signed an agreement creating the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission. Although still in its infancy, the Commission serves to draw attention to the unique needs of the border region, while improving and protecting the health and well- being of the residents on both sides of the border. The bill we are introducing today builds upon the effort we began 10 years ago. This legislation authorizes two new grant programs targeting health care and bioterror preparedness in the border area in addition to funding for the Commission. The first grant program we establish, the Border Health Grants, will be competitively awarded to programs that improve health care infrastructure or address the unique health care needs of the border region. Eligible programs could address health disparities, public health, maternal and child health, and conditions with a high prevalence in the border area. Acknowledging our national vulnerability in the wake of September 11 attacks and the need to ensure that bioterror efforts are specifically focused on the border region, our bill establishes bioterror preparedness grants for activities including coordination of bioterror and emergency preparedness, improvements in infrastructure, and education and training. The communities along our Nation's southern border typically have high rates of uninsured and underinsured individuals, unemployment, and poverty. This region also has higher rates of infections and chronic diseases, often exacerbated by migrant populations. Compounding these problems is the lack of health care facilities and qualified health care professionals. According to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, if the border area were a state, it would rank last in access in health care, second in death rates due to hepatitis, third in deaths related to diabetes, first in number of TB cases and last in per capita income. I have long supported legislative initiatives aimed at improving the security and quality of life in our border area. This bill is a part of that ongoing effort. As our Nation enters a new era of heightened national alert, it is incumbent upon us to ensure our border area--our front line of defense--is strenghtened and protected.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, related to compensation for American prisoners of war in Japan, I do not object but must of necessity vote ``present'' because, as a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of a measure that sets a precedent for compensation of American prisoners of war that could in some fashion be viewed as benefiting me personally.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yes, I think if it is China's view that the Security Council should not take up an issue of basic fundamental human rights and democracy and wish to veto it, that is their right as members of the U.N. Security Council. But the fact is, that does not relieve the United States of our obligation to bring it up. One other aspect. Since we have met with Mr. Razali on a number of occasions, up until our last meeting with the special envoy of the U.N., Mr. Razali, he was generally upbeat that things would get better in Burma, that some of the restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi would be relaxed, and that we should take this moderate approach. In fact, there was even little criticism of the inclusion of Burma in ASEAN because that would bring them into the fold. Now they are facing the embarrassing prospect of, 2 years from now, Burma taking over the chairmanship of ASEAN itself. That is remarkable. So it was very interesting to me that Mr. Razali, for all intents and purposes--from my impression of our conversation--has basically given up on the policy of sort of appeasement, bringing along the junta so they would become more democratic, et cetera. In fact, I think his statements, authenticated by events, indicate that that policy has been an abject failure.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership on this issue, not only now as we are in an incredibly critical moment in time in the history of the struggle of the Burmese people for freedom, but for his longstanding advocacy in this noble cause and his commitment to the security and safety of one of the heroic figures of the 20th and 21st centuries, Aung San Suu Kyi. Again, I thank him for not only motivating this body to rapid passage of this legislation but to his work with the other body which has resulted in us being able to pass it overwhelmingly today. I thank Senator McConnell again, and I regret to say we are a long way from seeing a resolution of this terrible unfolding, unending tragedy taking place in Burma. I guess as a personal pique, I refuse to call it Muanmar, which the junta have changed the name to, and we have a lot more to do. But I believe what we are doing today, because of his sponsorship, will send a message throughout Burma that we have not abandoned this heroic woman, nor have we abandoned the cause of democracy and freedom in this country of gentle people who deserve a great deal better than the group of thugs who have been oppressing them and repressing them for a long period of time. It has been almost 7 weeks since Burma's military junta orchestrated a savage attack on Burma's democrats and their leader Aung San Suu Kyi. In response Congress acted with extraordinary speed and consensus to send to the President's desk the bill before us banning imports from Burma. It is imperative that he sign it immediately, as I am confident he will. Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people can't wait, nor should Burma's rulers and neighbors wait a day longer to hear the United States speak with one voice in support of freedom in Burma. Congressional action on this bill is nearing completion, but as the Senator from Kentucky has said, our commitment to Burma's people will not end until they are free. Our resolve will not weaken as long as the junta denies the Burmese people a right to live in a nation ruled by law, not fear, led by the elected leader whose appeal no amount of violence can diminish and whose courage no amount of suffering can dim. It is now time for Burma's leaders, especially the frontline states, to join the United States and Europe in rejecting half measures and implementing a fundamentally new approach that looks forward to Burma's liberation rather than a mere moderation of an illegitimate regime's rule. Southeast Asia will not be stable or secure as long as the generals rule in Rangoon. Placing hope in a policy of reconciliation that relies more on the junta's goodwill than on international pressure for democratic change will do nothing to alter a status quo that upholds tyranny. China, India, and Thailand directly suffer the effects of regional insecurity caused by AIDS, drugs, and refugees that flow across Burma's borders. They also suffer the economic consequences of living next to a bankrupt nation whose economy is controlled largely by drug lords and a corrupt military elite. While China may not be troubled by dictatorship in Burma, it would clearly benefit economically from having another Asian tiger on its borders which good government and Burma's natural wealth would make it. Democratic India would benefit strategically and economically from a fellow democracy in Rangoon that could expand Indian influence in Southeast Asia and serve as a significant trading partner. We expect more in particular from our ally Thailand which has done little of substance to support change in Burma since the May 30 attacks. As far as I am concerned, business as usual won't cut it. We frankly expect a democratic ally such as Thailand to do more to oppose dictatorship in Burma, both out of principle and because of the insecurity its misrule brings to Thailand. We will be watching for signs of a new policy approach in Bangkok. This will be an issue in our bilateral relationship. We welcome Japan's announcement of suspending new assistance to Burma as a result of the junta's crackdown. But Tokyo's existing aid programs send a mixed signal to the democrats who were so heartened by popular protests on their behalf in the streets of Tokyo. We would welcome the Government of Japan's reassessment of its entire policy toward Burma. All of us appreciated ASEAN's joint statement calling for Aung San Suu Kyi's early release at the Phnom Penh summit, breaking with the group's history of noninterference in each other's affairs. But friends of ASEAN want to see it take concrete steps to prove its relevance to security and stability in Southeast Asia. I remind my colleagues that when ASEAN admitted Burma into ASEAN, it was with the promise and commitment that things would improve in Burma. No one can argue that there has been anything but retrogression and an increase in brutality and, of course, the latest outrage in the capture and mistreatment of their freely elected leader. Events in Burma are testing ASEAN as never before. Burma's crisis impacts every nation in the region, from AIDS, drugs, and refugees to political and economic instability. Those of us who want ASEAN to succeed expect it to play a leadership role in its own backyard and to deliver on its promises in 1997 that membership would change Burma. Some of us weren't convinced then and we are not convinced today. Burma will soon be preparing to assume ASEAN's presidency in 2006. What kind of an image does ASEAN have with Burma as its president? ASEAN's credibility can't withstand the presidency of a rogue regime that is unreconstructed and brutal, which has the blood of its people on its hands and imprisons their elected leader. As long as Burma festers, ASEAN looks either incapacitated, weak, or irrelevant. As long as Aung San Suu Kyi remains in prison and the Burmese people live in fear, convinced Burma's neighbors are complicit in their suffering, the problem of Burma will be an issue in America's bilateral relations with nations across Asia. It is time for Burma to command the attention of the U.N. Security Council. Burma's misrule is clearly of international importance. The council has not even formally been briefed by Ambassador Razali Ismail since his visit over a month ago to Rangoon as the Secretary General's personal representative. The United States should demand that the Security Council take up this issue. As the United States, the EU, and even ASEAN have acknowledged, Burma is an international problem. The council would be remiss to ignore it, and even a council debate would command the attention of the generals. It might also command some attention in Beijing, Bangkok, Tokyo, and other capitals with the power to make a difference. It is past time for the United States and our allies to press this issue. I am proud that Congress, with passage of this legislation, is speaking with one voice in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people. The generals must know we won't let up the pressure until Burma is free. The United States stands with the Burmese people in their struggle for the freedom that is their birthright and which the generals have stolen from them. We will do everything in our power to help them take back their country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four editorials be printed in the Record. Two are from the Washington Post, one from the Wall Street Journal, and the final one a comment by Jack Straw, the foreign minister of Great Britain.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Washington Post editorial of July 14 says: It's been a month since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell promised prompt action to penalize the generals he referred to as ``the thugs who run the Burmese government.'' The time had come, he said in an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal, to freeze their financial assets and ban remittances into Burma. But the administration has taken no such steps. It's been six weeks since the junta sent 3,000 vigilantes armed with wooden bats and sharpened iron rods, to beat and stab Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters as they traveled with her in the hinterland. [She] apparently escaped injury but was taken into custody and, except for one brief interview with a U.N. envoy, has not been heard from since. And the United Nations? You might think the Security Council would have swung into action to demand freedom for one of the world's most courageous leaders and for her colleagues and to address the threat to regional stability posed by the increasingly erratic junta. After all, there is no dispute as to her legitimacy; the party she leads overwhelmingly won an election in 1990 but has never been permitted to take its rightful place in government. So far, however, the chief U.S. response has been the election of Burma--or Myanmar, as the generals call it--to the presidency of the General Assembly for the session that begins in September. The Washington Post June 22, last year: But actions of real consequences? So far, none. Southeast Asian foreign ministers, meeting last week in Cambodia with Mr. Powell, agreed to send a delegation to Burma no later than October. October? While one of the world's most courageous political leaders languishes in one of its most infamous jails? Where are Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security Council? Where are the executive orders that President Bush could issue today? I appreciate very much, and I referred to, Secretary Colin Powell's article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on June 12 and, on June 25, Jack Straw's article--the Foreign Secretary, as we all know, of our close friend and ally, England. He wrote: Last week was Aung San Suu Kyi's 58th birthday. What should have been a day of quiet celebration with family and friends for the Nobel Peace Prize winner was instead spent in detention in a jail outside Rangoon. . . . Far from Ms. Suu Kyi's being in ``protective custody,'' the only people being ``protected'' by her detention are those in the military regime itself. They hope that by keeping her-- and the democratic movement--incarcerated they can cling on to power. The military government, which attempts to run Burma through fear and intimidation, is not only brutal, but also corrupt and incompetent. A once prosperous country is being run into the ground. Poverty is rife and diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are spreading. In stark contrast in the Burmese military junta, and to their enduring fury Ms. Suu Kyi commands the support and respect of the Burmese people. Ever since her party won an election in 1990, the regime has harassed and intimidated Ms. Suu Kyi and her supporters. She has already suffered long spells of house arrest and imprisonment. Hundreds of her supporters are also in prison, many without trial. Others have been blackmailed or intimidated into giving up politics. But whenever and wherever she travels, ordinary people still turn out in the thousands to see and hear her. For them, she is a marker of hope for a better future. He concludes by saying: The hopes and aspirations of the Burmese people cannot be frustrated. The spirit and justness of the democracy movement cannot be contained by violence or prison cells. We call on the friends of Burma, in Asia and around the world, to redouble their efforts to help Ms. Suu Kyi and the people of Burma move toward national reconciliation, respect for human rights, and democracy they so richly deserve. Mr. President, we need the Security Council to debate this issue. Our Ambassador and our Secretary of State should call for that debate. Our administration, following the passage of this legislation, should immediately implement Executive orders that can further put restrictions on our relations with this gang of thugs in Burma. Finally, there are probably people who may be viewing this action by Congress today and the comments the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and I are making and saying: You know, Burma is a small country, far away. It is rise or fall. Its type of government has very little impact on the United States economically, culturally, politically, or militarily. But I argue that that is not the case, particularly when we look at the flow of drugs and many other things that are happening in this country. Why is it that these Senators are not talking about Iraq? Americans are dying--one a day--there. There is an unfolding scandal, or mini- scandal, about who knew what and when and why, and there is a great politicization of that. North Korea has threatened to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq apparently is doing that. Why isn't the Senate devoting their attention to larger issues that far more vastly affect the U.S. national security? The answer is simple: This democracy movement in Burma is what America is all about. Over 200 years ago, in a very small country, a very small movement for independence--which was given very little chance--took place in this country. If it had not been for the help of other countries--particularly France--the United States may have achieved its independence over time, but certainly not in the way that we did.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at the risk of redundancy, what is happening in Burma is what the United States is all about--our defense of freedom and democracy, even if it doesn't affect our national interest. That is what makes America different. I argue that this administration, this Congress, and the American people will reconfirm their commitment to their freedom, democracy, and to one of the great heroic figures in history, and that is Madam Aung San Suu Kyi, who has the profound respect, appreciation, affection, and admiration of all who have encountered her and many who have not. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman for that explanation. It makes it much more clear. I appreciate that. There are a number of them. One of them that is interesting is $9 million for SensorNet. SensorNet is developed by a company in Modesto, CA. They obviously make hardware and software because that is in their advertisement. In researching this earmark on the Web site, I found this 10- to 15-percent-off coupon on the Internet. Now, I would ask my colleagues, if they are going to give average Americans 10 to 15 percent off, and we are going to give them $9 million, could they give us 10 to 15 percent off? Maybe we could save over $1 million. They are giving everybody else 10 to 15 percent off. Maybe they could give us 10 to 15 percent off as well. This is the advertisement: 10-15% 0ff--Order Now and Save At AccuLab Products Group, we understand the difficulties of integrating science applications into the classroom. That's why we developed the SensorNet Science Program--the friendliest system on the market! Its ease of operation and flexibility offers the user wide ranges of applications without requiring a degree in computer technology. Our precalibrated, precision engineered probes offer the accuracy and reliability needed to perform in the toughest of situations and are backed by a 1 year guarantee. So they are going to give 10 to 15 percent off. I would hope we could negotiate 10 to 15 percent off on our appropriation to them. The hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base, New York, the site of Woodstock 1999. Perhaps unintentional damage was done during Woodstock that requires that hangar to be renovated. Of course, we are back to the old smart truck for the auto industry, and $12 million for the 21st century truck. It would be fun to drive one, I am sure. Here is an interesting one: $4 million for the Ernest Gallo Clinic & Research Center. I love a fine wine as much as the next guy, I think, but do we need to fund Ernest Gallo or his research center with defense dollars? Here is another: $8 million for the New England manufacturing supply chain. This is above and beyond the $6 million earmarked for them in last year's legislation. There is $9 million for the medical free electron laser, $1 billion for the brown tree snakes. The Senator from Hawaii and I had a discussion about this item and the following items. The brown tree snake may be a serious threat to the Island of Hawaii. The question remains--and the Senator from Hawaii has never satisfactorily answered, at least not to my satisfaction--why this money has to come out of defense, why the brown tree snake should not be addressed by the Department of the Interior or the appropriate branch of Government. Why do we have to take it out of the hides of the men and women in the military to fight the brown tree snake? Shouldn't it come out of the appropriate agency of Government? We have $150 million for breast cancer research, $85 million for prostate cancer research, $50 million for the Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program, $24 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network, $3 million for tribal colleges-science lab and computer equipment, $3 million for Pacific Island health care referral, $1.5 million for neurogenetic research and computational genomics--this is on top of $650,000 included in this year's omnibus appropriations. These are all worthy causes. The cause of breast cancer research is worthy. The $85 million for prostate cancer research, it has no place in the Defense bill. When we are spending $3.9 billion a day just to take care of our operations in Iraq, we cannot take much needed defense dollars and put it for other programs that are not related to defense. So I want to talk about one other area that is of concern, and that is the potential impact on readiness because of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and is certainly essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets. I would like to point out something else to my colleagues. We impose these ``buy America'' provisions while we buy from our allies and friends overseas a much smaller amount than they buy from us. If we keep restricting the ability of our Government to buy products that are made in other countries, sooner or later those countries will stop buying equipment, military equipment and others, that are built in the United States unless there is a compelling national security interest. ``Buy America'' provisions include these items: anchor chains, carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate, ball and roller bearings, computers, diesel engines, and propellers. There is a seafood waiver as a provision in this legislation in which we dictate we can buy only American seafood. I wonder if there is a 3- mile limit or a 10-mile limit or a 100-mile limit. Or does it have to be just caught by Americans, the same fish but caught by Americans, not by somebody else? Why does the Department of Defense need to protect the American seafood industry? Why is the entire industry singled out for protection? Why not protect the American dairy product industry? Why aren't they covered? Believe it or not, I do not enjoy coming to the floor on this issue. But I would argue--I would argue strenuously--that with a budget deficit--and it is in the headlines of every major newspaper in America: $455 billion--we cannot afford to spend additional billions on unneeded and unwanted projects. There are many projects on this list that I will submit for the Record which are very badly needed and are legitimate but it is hard to know the difference when all we know is it appears in an appropriations bill. All of a sudden it just appears. Was there a hearing on the issue of allowing the Department of Defense to only buy American seafood? That is a pretty significant measure that only American seafood can be purchased by the Department of Defense. Was there ever a hearing on it? Was there ever any discussion or debate on it? No. It shows up in this appropriations bill. Do we really have to not allow other countries to sell us things as simple as anchor chains? What are we protecting? Could we save money by buying somebody else's anchor chain and spend that money, perhaps, on upgrading the lives of the men and women in the military? In case you haven't heard, my friends, we have a problem in the military today, and it is keeping people in the Reserves and the Guard, and it is keeping people on active duty. I think if you watch television tonight you will see interviews with a number of men and women serving in the military who have just been told they will be extended for another 6 months on duty in Iraq because there are not sufficient troops to replace them. So instead of perhaps expanding the size of the military to meet these new requirements, we are going to spend $1 million on the canola oil fuel cell initiative, brown tree snakes, the Shakespeare in American Military Communities project, and an Academy for Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps. The Academy for Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps is a grant to the Timbuktu Academy located in Baton Rouge, LA to conduct research on academic achievement gaps between students of varying socioeconomic backgrounds. It sounds like a very worthy cause to me. But why again should this come out of defense dollars? I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. The amendment I proposed will eliminate the canola oil fuel cell initiative, the Shakespeare in American Military Communities project, the brown tree snake funding program, hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base, and the Academy For Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment strikes funds for the canola oil fuel cell initiative, Shakespeare in American military communities project, control of brown tree snakes, hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base, and the Academy for Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps. First, I would like to address the Senate concerning the 2004 Defense Appropriations Act. With each and every appropriations act, I come down to the floor of the Senate to point out many of the special interests and pet projects Members add to the legislation each year. Today I have the opportunity to speak on H.R. 2658, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. I remind my colleagues, the responsibilities of authorizers and appropriators are supposed to be distinct. The role of the Senate Armed Services Committee is to establish policy and funding levels and to oversee the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies provided by authorization bills. The appropriators' function today, as we all know, has expanded dramatically and the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decisionmaking and micromanaging, clearly usurping the role of the authorizing committees. The chairman of the Rules Committee was kind enough, a week or so ago, to have a hearing on a proposal I have to change the rules so that a point of order can be more easily lodged against an unauthorized appropriation. I will not bore my colleagues with further details because I have already introduced the rule and explained it. But during that hearing, chaired by my friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott, there was discussion of the process. This situation, this imbroglio in which we find ourselves, is not entirely the fault of the appropriators. I know it sounds strange for me to make that statement, but the fact is that there are holds on bills which are authorizing, which are done anonymously in many cases, and prevent the authorizing aspect of the process to be carried out, thereby forcing the appropriators to act in a policy fashion. Many times these holds are permanent and, really, there are some occasions where the Senators themselves do not know that those holds have been imposed. Additionally, there is the process that, unfortunately, results that many programs and important agencies of Government even are not reauthorized. The Federal Communications Commission, which falls under the responsibility of the committee I chair, has not been reauthorized since 1993. So then it is understandable why the appropriators would act in such fashion. I preface my remarks with the full acknowledgment that the system itself has broken down to a great degree. As I came to this floor before and pointed out, the process of earmarking and outrageous appropriating has increased in a dramatic but reasonable fashion when you consider that any evil unchecked is going to rise. According to information compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which examined earmarks for fiscal years 1994-2002, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 10,540 in 2002--an increase of over 150 percent. The level of funding has risen from $26.8 billion in 1994 to $44.6 billion in fiscal year 2002, an increase of over 66 percent. We are talking about real money. We now see on the front page of the Washington Post this morning that the budget deficit may surpass $450 billion. I might remind my colleagues that there is a little chart on the other side. In 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion; $127 billion in 2001; a deficit of $157 billion in 2002; and, in 2003 it is estimated to be $450 billion. My dear friends, if you believe it is only going to be $450 billion, I have some land in the Arizona desert I would like to sell you. This does not take into account, as recently admitted by the Secretary of Defense, $4 billion a month just for our operations in Iraq, which I support. My point is we can't afford to do this anymore. We can't afford to continue to spend money like drunken sailors. I never knew a sailor, drunk or sober, who had the imagination to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars on the Shakespeare in American Military Communities Project--$1 million. Shakespeare in America Communities Project? Come on. Out of the Defense appropriations bill? The hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base--the Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, NY, was closed in 1995. It has been reopened to civilian flight operations. In 1999, the airbase hosted Woodstock. Yet we are going to spend money to renovate the hangar there. We are going to spend $2 million. On a closed Air Force base we are going to spend $2 million. Meanwhile, we still have men and women, wives and husbands and family members who are fighting in Iraq on food stamps. I don't know what the Canola Oil Fuel Cell Initiative is. Canola is grown in the Western United States and Canada. Forty percent of each seed can be produced into canola oil. Prices for canola oil have dropped, I am sorry to say. But we are spending money for a Canola Oil Fuel Cell Initiative. What does that have to do with defense? Let me just add an additional comment. The very highly respected, I believe, Concord Coalition came up with a study in the last couple of days which is excoriating in its comments. I think it is right on the mark. The Concord Coalition Report on Fiscal Responsibility: Deficits, Deception and Denial Rate a Failing Grade The first six months of the 108th Congress were the most fiscally irresponsible in recent memory. The crux of the program was the schizophrenic pursuit of small government tax policies and big government spending initiatives. Following the lead of the Bush administration, Congress made no attempt to reconcile the cost of new tax cuts on spending initiatives within the framework of a realistic long-term balanced budget plan. Instead, policymakers took a deteriorating budget outlook and made it worse. To add insult to injury, Congress used deceptive accounting gimmicks that would land a corporate CEO in jail. It is hard to say which is worse, the sunset gimmick used to hide the cost of an unaffordable tax cut, the doughnut hole gimmick used to hide the cost of an unaffordable, new Medicare entitlement, the shell games used to hide the appropriations of the disingenuous budget resolution that led to such in the first place. Then there was denial. Policymakers simply closed their eyes to the inevitable cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax and the growing cost of the war against terrorism at home and abroad. I commend the Concord Coalition report to my colleagues which gives a grade of a D and an F. You know what we are doing. We are heading for a train wreck. Everybody knows it. I don't know whatever happened to the old lockbox. Do you remember the old lockbox where we were going to take everybody's money for Social Security and put it in a lockbox so it couldn't be touched? You know what we are doing with the lockbox. It is simply because we are paying the retirement benefits of people who are retired. Those who are working have no money in accounts bearing their names. It is unfortunate. The summer blockbuster is not showing on your local movie screen but rather on the floor of the Senate. I am alarmed about a large green monster, and it is not the ``Incredible Hulk.'' I am talking about the exploding national deficit, and it should make the blood boil. We are now learning that the irresponsible tax cut and spending binge in Washington is resulting in this huge deficit. Even ``The Terminator'' can't stop the river of red ink that is endangering our fiscal future. It is like the ``Pirates of the Caribbean'' stealing our children's and our grandchildren's financial future. I thought that was pretty well written. I recognize the failure. I want to tell my colleagues that I recognize that the failure of the authorizing committees to pass authorizing legislation contributes to the broken system. I want to work together with the appropriators to try to solve this issue because often the appropriators have no choice but to fund unauthorized programs and take it upon themselves to make policy determinations. The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act not only contained $3.7 billion in pork but also the dubious Boeing tanker lease. The conference report for the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill contained $8.1 billion in pork. The Senate version included $5.2 billion. This year's bill contains well over $4 billion. This number is less than last year's Senate version of the legislation. This is real money. The projects that appear in the Defense appropriations Member-add-ons are items requested by Senators and not included in the President's budget request. They do not appear on the Joint Chiefs unfunded priority list. They are not authorized in the Defense authorization bill. This criteria is used by many organizations. And it has been useful in ferreting out programs of questionable merit and determining the relative priority of projects requested by Members for parochial reasons. The fact remains that in the years I have created these lists no offsets have been provided for any project. At a time when some of our soldiers and sailors still receive food stamps and live in inadequate housing, we find a way to provide over $4 billion in unnecessary spending through the Defense appropriations bill. For example, the Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what was provided for in the President's budget request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2004. We should provide additional funding for defense for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need, and we need to set that as a priority. I point out once again that the bases in Alaska stand to benefit a great deal in this legislation. Alaskan bases alone will receive $214 million in unrequested spending for improvements, renovations, and upgrades. Looking back at my career in the Navy, I wish I had been so fortunate as to be stationed in Alaska. Some of the more egregious examples of pork in this year's legislation include, as I mentioned, $1 million for Shakespeare in American Military Communities. What is wrong with Ernest Hemingway? I wonder why Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the English language. But there may be a difference of opinion as to who the greatest writers in the English language were. Why not Chekhov or Ibsen? Forty-nine million dollars for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Arizona is home to an observatory. But we are going to earmark $49 million to Maui while there are many observatories in the United States that offer many of these same benefits. Two million dollars for miniature autonomous vehicles. There is $5 million for the bug-to-drug program. It is not often I bother the distinguished chairman but perhaps he can tell me what the bug-to-drug program is. There is an appropriation of $5 million for the bug-to-drug program. While he is looking it up, I will continue. There is $1.5 million to educate the 21st Century Information Operations Workforce, $2.5 million for the Hawaii Undersea Vehicle Test and Training Environment. I mentioned there is $2.5 million for the canola oil fuel cell initiative. I would think the only canola oil the Department of Defense should be investing in should be used for salad dressing for our troops, not inventing batteries.

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. I would be interested in the bug-to-drug program.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will ask my colleague from Alaska a question. I will preface it by saying I do appreciate the cooperation that has been displayed while addressing this bill. I tell my friend from Alaska also that it has been very helpful for us to have the information and to be able to look at these amendments as they have come up. I hope next year we will see Hemingway, Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and others of my favorite authors included in this program. I also ask the Senator, concerning the Corzine amendment, isn't it true that the Senate Armed Services Committee is holding, and will be holding, hearings concerning the entire conflict, including friendly fire casualties, including the enormous success, including the issue of weapons of mass destruction; and those will be held openly and in a systematic manner, which Senator Warner and Senator Levin have been working on in a bipartisan manner? Didn't the chairman of the Intelligence Committee hold a closed hearing today, and will he not hold a public hearing next week? Aren't we going through an orderly process of hearings concerning the conduct of the war? The American people, of course, want to know about the friendly fire tragedy, and they also want to know how we did so well, how our equipment performed in such a magnificent fashion. It was one of the most rapid military victories in history. Isn't it true that we are going through an orderly process of hearings concerning this conflict, in a very appropriate manner? If at such time those hearings are not satisfactory to the American people, or they don't cover enough information, or something like that, wouldn't sometime later be more appropriate to say a commission should be appointed rather than at the time when the appropriate committees, as far as I can tell, are carrying out their responsibilities and reviewing the conduct of the war and the oversight policies dictating our military? Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Stevens in introducing the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reform the governance structure of the United States Olympic Committee, USOC, in response to a series of embarrassing events that has beset the USOC and threatened the organization's credibility in the eyes of our athletes, the American people, and the international sports community. While the current mission of the USOC is to ``preserve and promote the Olympic ideal as an effective, positive role model that inspires all Americans,'' turmoil within the organization over the past decade has seriously compromised that mission and has amplified significant problems that exist within its governance structure and culture. By failing to place the organization ahead betrayed the Olympic ideals that they pledged to preserve. The bill that we are introducing today is the product of three hearings held this year by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in response to several USOC scandals and in an effort to help begin reforming the organization. It also is informed by the report of an independent commission requested by the Commerce Committee to review the USOC, and a review by an internal USOC task force, both of which were released last month. The bill would make significant improvements to the governance structure of the USOC by reducing the size of the current board of directors from 124 to nine members and by creating an assembly of USOC stakeholders. Unlike the current duopolistic leadership structure of the USOC, the board would be the primary governing body of the USOC, and it would appoint a chief executive officer to carry out its policies and run its day-to-day operations. As such, the USOC will become a more efficient and effective organization, as well as one with a more logical and transparent structure. In addition, the bill would maintain the authority of athletes and national governing bodies in the operation of the USOC, require increased financial transparency, and provide whistle-blower protection for USOC employees. Most importantly, however, this bill would streamline the organization to allow a larger percentage of USOC revenues to be dedicated to support amateur athletes. Instead of supporting a large and wasteful corporate structure, the reformed USOC will be able to dedicate fewer resources to a small and more effective governing body. We must be mindful that the Olympic movement is not about people who attach themselves to the USOC for their own benefit. It is a movement that is driven by athletes who dedicate their bodies and souls to improving their God-given talent with the hope of someday realizing their Olympic dreams. The USOC is an entity entrusted by the American people with the privilege of being the custodian of these dreams. We must act quickly to ensure that the self-serving agendas of individual USOC constituencies are no longer paramount to the common objectives of the organization. The problems that plague the USOC compromise the organization's ability to operate effectively and efficiently and undermine the credibility of the organization. I believe this bill would provide realistic remedial measures to these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support its expeditious enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Stevens in introducing the United States Olympic Committee Reform Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to reform the governance structure of the United States Olympic Committee, USOC, in response to a series of embarrassing events that has beset the USOC and threatened the organization's credibility in the eyes of our athletes, the American people, and the international sports community. While the current mission of the USOC is to ``preserve and promote the Olympic ideal as an effective, positive role model that inspires all Americans,'' turmoil within the organization over the past decade has seriously compromised that mission and has amplified significant problems that exist within its governance structure and culture. By failing to place the organization ahead betrayed the Olympic ideals that they pledged to preserve. The bill that we are introducing today is the product of three hearings held this year by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in response to several USOC scandals and in an effort to help begin reforming the organization. It also is informed by the report of an independent commission requested by the Commerce Committee to review the USOC, and a review by an internal USOC task force, both of which were released last month. The bill would make significant improvements to the governance structure of the USOC by reducing the size of the current board of directors from 124 to nine members and by creating an assembly of USOC stakeholders. Unlike the current duopolistic leadership structure of the USOC, the board would be the primary governing body of the USOC, and it would appoint a chief executive officer to carry out its policies and run its day-to-day operations. As such, the USOC will become a more efficient and effective organization, as well as one with a more logical and transparent structure. In addition, the bill would maintain the authority of athletes and national governing bodies in the operation of the USOC, require increased financial transparency, and provide whistle-blower protection for USOC employees. Most importantly, however, this bill would streamline the organization to allow a larger percentage of USOC revenues to be dedicated to support amateur athletes. Instead of supporting a large and wasteful corporate structure, the reformed USOC will be able to dedicate fewer resources to a small and more effective governing body. We must be mindful that the Olympic movement is not about people who attach themselves to the USOC for their own benefit. It is a movement that is driven by athletes who dedicate their bodies and souls to improving their God-given talent with the hope of someday realizing their Olympic dreams. The USOC is an entity entrusted by the American people with the privilege of being the custodian of these dreams. We must act quickly to ensure that the self-serving agendas of individual USOC constituencies are no longer paramount to the common objectives of the organization. The problems that plague the USOC compromise the organization's ability to operate effectively and efficiently and undermine the credibility of the organization. I believe this bill would provide realistic remedial measures to these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support its expeditious enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Today, I am joined by Senator Hollings in introducing the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act. This legislation would reauthorize the Federal rail safety program, which expired at the end of fiscal year 1998. The rail safety program, which is administered by the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, encompasses a range of inspection, research, education, and oversight initiatives aimed at protecting the safety of railroad employees; ensuring track and equipment are properly maintained; enhancing grade crossing safety; safeguarding the transportation of hazardous materials by rail; and overseeing the industry's safety practices and procedures. FRA also monitors Amtrak and, in the past two years, has assumed a more active role in protecting the investment of the taxpayers in that troubled enterprise. There have been remarkable improvements in rail safety over the past 20 years, attributable to both the safety program and the Staggers Act, the landmark legislation enacted in 1980 to partially deregulate the freight railroads. According to FRA statistics, the rail industry's train accident rate has declined 68 percent since the Staggers Act was passed and the rate of employee injuries and fatalities has fallen 74 percent. The number of grade crossing collisions declined 72 percent from 1980 through 2002, while fatalities declined 57 percent. The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act would renew our commitment to a strong rail safety program. The legislation would authorize $166 million for rail safety in fiscal year 2004, the amount requested by the Administration, rising to $200 million in fiscal year 2008. Included in these authorizations would be additional funds to continue initiatives to test and install positive train control, PTC, systems on passenger and freight railroad rights-of-way. Some federal support of PTC technology is warranted; PTC has been on the National Transportation Safety Board's ``most wanted'' list since 1990, but is cost-prohibitive for the railroads to install on a widespread basis. Our proposed legislation also would make improvements to grade crossing safety by formally establishing a national crossing inventory, reauthorizing Operation Lifesaver, and requiring the development of model state legislation with penalties for drivers who violate crossing signs, signals, and gates. The legislation also would direct FRA to develop a plan for a joint initiative with states and municipalities to close 1 percent of all public and private grade crossings each year for a 10-year period. This is an ambitious goal but one that would clearly save lives. The legislation we propose today also would address long-standing concerns about employee fatigue in the rail industry. The bill would require that a working group be convened within FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to consider what legislative or other changes may be appropriate to address fatigue management and report back to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure within 18 months following enactment. While the railroads and rail labor organizations have initiated a number of discrete pilot projects to address fatigue, it is unclear whether real progress is being made. If a consensus cannot be reached by the working group, the Department of Transportation would be required to submit its own recommendations within 2 years following enactment. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Today, I am joined by Senator Hollings in introducing the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act. This legislation would reauthorize the Federal rail safety program, which expired at the end of fiscal year 1998. The rail safety program, which is administered by the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, encompasses a range of inspection, research, education, and oversight initiatives aimed at protecting the safety of railroad employees; ensuring track and equipment are properly maintained; enhancing grade crossing safety; safeguarding the transportation of hazardous materials by rail; and overseeing the industry's safety practices and procedures. FRA also monitors Amtrak and, in the past two years, has assumed a more active role in protecting the investment of the taxpayers in that troubled enterprise. There have been remarkable improvements in rail safety over the past 20 years, attributable to both the safety program and the Staggers Act, the landmark legislation enacted in 1980 to partially deregulate the freight railroads. According to FRA statistics, the rail industry's train accident rate has declined 68 percent since the Staggers Act was passed and the rate of employee injuries and fatalities has fallen 74 percent. The number of grade crossing collisions declined 72 percent from 1980 through 2002, while fatalities declined 57 percent. The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act would renew our commitment to a strong rail safety program. The legislation would authorize $166 million for rail safety in fiscal year 2004, the amount requested by the Administration, rising to $200 million in fiscal year 2008. Included in these authorizations would be additional funds to continue initiatives to test and install positive train control, PTC, systems on passenger and freight railroad rights-of-way. Some federal support of PTC technology is warranted; PTC has been on the National Transportation Safety Board's ``most wanted'' list since 1990, but is cost-prohibitive for the railroads to install on a widespread basis. Our proposed legislation also would make improvements to grade crossing safety by formally establishing a national crossing inventory, reauthorizing Operation Lifesaver, and requiring the development of model state legislation with penalties for drivers who violate crossing signs, signals, and gates. The legislation also would direct FRA to develop a plan for a joint initiative with states and municipalities to close 1 percent of all public and private grade crossings each year for a 10-year period. This is an ambitious goal but one that would clearly save lives. The legislation we propose today also would address long-standing concerns about employee fatigue in the rail industry. The bill would require that a working group be convened within FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee to consider what legislative or other changes may be appropriate to address fatigue management and report back to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure within 18 months following enactment. While the railroads and rail labor organizations have initiated a number of discrete pilot projects to address fatigue, it is unclear whether real progress is being made. If a consensus cannot be reached by the working group, the Department of Transportation would be required to submit its own recommendations within 2 years following enactment. I look forward to working with my colleagues in moving this bill through the legislative process in the weeks ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.