[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 6, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3241-S3262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     FOREIGN AFFAIRS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 and 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 308

  Mr. SALAZAR. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 308.

  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To increase the accountability and effectiveness of 
                     international police training)

       At the end of title VIII, insert the following:

     SEC. 812. INTERNATIONAL POLICE TRAINING.

       (a) Requirements for Instructors.--Prior to carrying out 
     any program of training for police or security forces through 
     the Bureau that begins after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall ensure that--
       (1) such training is provided by instructors who have 
     proven records of experience in training law enforcement or 
     security personnel;
       (2) the Bureau has established procedures to ensure that 
     the individuals who receive such training--
       (A) do not have a criminal background;
       (B) are not connected to any criminal or insurgent group;
       (C) are not connected to drug traffickers; and
       (D) meet the minimum age and experience standards set out 
     in appropriate international agreements; and
       (3) the Bureau has established procedures that--
       (A) clearly establish the standards an individual who will 
     receive such training must meet;
       (B) clearly establish the training courses that will permit 
     the individual to meet such standards; and
       (C) provide for certification of an individual who meets 
     such standards.
       (b) Advisory Board.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     advisory board of 10 experts to advise the Bureau on issues 
     related to cost efficiency and professional efficacy of 
     police and security training programs. The board shall have 
     not less than 5 members who are experienced United States law 
     enforcement personnel.
       (c) Bureau Defined.--In this section, the term ``Bureau'' 
     means the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
     Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State.
       (d) Annual Report.--Not later than September 30 of each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the training for international police or security forces 
     conducted by the Bureau. Such report shall include the 
     attrition rates of the instructors of such training and 
     indicators of job performance of such instructors.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment to 
document the importance of making sure we have the right standards and 
certifications with respect to training law enforcement and security 
officers on missions around the world.
  I speak to this amendment based on my experience as Colorado attorney 
general where I sat as chairman of the peace officers standards and 
training board for a period of 6 years. Working with my colleagues in 
law enforcement, we developed a set of standards that made sure the 
people we were recruiting into our police forces in the State of 
Colorado were people who had been checked for criminal backgrounds and 
would be able to serve. We also developed a set of standards with 
respect to the training of these law enforcement officers. This 
amendment creates those same standards and background checks with 
respect to people being recruited into security forces to help with our 
efforts around the world.
  I understand the amendment I have offered will be considered by 
Senator Lugar and others as we return to the Senate.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.


                           Amendment No. 284

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, yesterday I offered an amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Wyden from

[[Page S3242]]

Oregon. I will now describe that amendment in some greater detail. I 
know others, including my colleague from Oregon, will be here.
  It is an amendment to terminate something called TV Marti, Television 
Marti. It is spending money on something that does not work, spending 
money we do not have on something that is not needed. Even waste, of 
course, has a constituency in this town, so there will be those who 
will oppose this amendment. I will describe why this is a tragic waste 
of the American taxpayers' money.
  This is a picture of an aerostat balloon called Fat Albert. Fat 
Albert has a great history. Fat Albert has been used for a number of 
things. At one point we had an aerostat balloon, Fat Albert, that got 
loose of its mooring in Florida. Eventually, it lifted fishing boats 
from the sea. They had to shoot it down. The Air Force had to shoot 
down Fat Albert.
  This is the aerostat balloon, along with a 20,000-foot tether cable 
that broadcasts television signals into the country of Cuba to tell the 
Cubans how good life is in America and to give the Cubans a straight 
story.
  We have spent $189 million on this program over a number of years 
since 1989. Over 16 years we have spent nearly $200 million.
  We have another program called Radio Marti. I don't propose that we 
terminate funding for that because by and large the Cubans are 
receiving signals from Radio Marti. Radio Marti is beneficial. I have 
been to Cuba and talked to the Cubans. They can listen to commercial 
stations from Miami, as well, and do. But Radio Marti gets its signals 
to the Cuban people.
  TV Marti, by contrast, has cost the American taxpayer since 1989 $189 
million to broadcast television signals into Cuba that the Cuban people 
cannot see because the Castro Government routinely jammed those 
signals. In fact, for much of its existence, Television Marti was 
broadcasting signals from 3 a.m. until 8 in the morning--again, 
broadcasting signals the Cuban people could not see.
  That, of course, is no barrier in this country. The 20,000-foot 
tether on the aerostat balloon called Fat Albert sits up there in the 
sky with the technicians. By the way, since they had to shoot one down 
and since another one got loose and went over to the Everglades and 
they had to round up this aerostat balloon and figure out a way to 
catch it, since then they now have three different ways of 
communicating with and controlling Fat Albert which I am sure is of 
great comfort to the people who might be in the way of an aerostat 
balloon that gets loose in this country.
  Fat Albert is up there every day on the case, broadcasting television 
signals to the Cuban people. And every day, the Cuban people see this--
this is a television screen in Cuba--they see snow, because Castro jams 
the signals. So we have a program we pay for that doesn't work, that is 
not needed, and we keep doing it year after year.
  And this year, guess what. The President wants to double the funding. 
Yes, that is true, a program that does not work, is unneeded, is 
wasting the taxpayers' money, and the President's budget says, let's 
double the funding.
  Let me tell you what they did after they had this introduction of Fat 
Albert. Fat Albert gets loose, goes over to the Everglades, it is kind 
of a problem, and everyone is embarrassed about it. It is a worthless 
program that sends signals no one can receive to the Cuban people, and 
then they lose a balloon and they have all these embarrassing anecdotes 
of the fact that they are spending money to broadcast a television 
signal no one can receive, and so they decide they will do something 
different.
  October 10, 2003, in the Rose Garden, the administration announced 
new ``get tough'' measures with Cuba which, among other things, said we 
will stop using Fat Albert; we are not going to use an aerostat balloon 
anymore. Now we are going to take Commando Solo, a C-130 Air National 
Guard plane, special operations C-130 airplane called Commando Solo. 
They are going to now broadcast television signals from Commando Solo.
  The broadcast of TV Marti from Commando Solo commenced once a week 
for a 4\1/2\ hour broadcast. They use the same technology the current 
Fat Albert blimp uses. It broadcasts a signal from a high altitude 
which then is jammed by the Castro Government. The Commando Solo cannot 
overcome jammers in Havana, either. It can only reach areas if there 
are areas where the Castro Government is not jamming.
  Commando Solo is operated by the 193rd Special Operations Wing of the 
Pennsylvania National Guard. It was designed for psychological warfare 
in military situations. It has been used to broadcast television 
messages in Panama, Desert Shield, Grenada, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, 
and Iraq, largely areas where there has been combat that has occurred. 
There are half a dozen of these airplanes that exist. They are a 
precious military resource that is being used for what is now a 
nonmilitary operation. So now instead of Fat Albert, or in addition to 
Fat Albert, we have Commando Solo. There is no evidence, of course, 
that the Cubans can receive a signal from Commando Solo, but we are 
still pumping taxpayers' money into this folly.
  The President's budget says we are spending $10 million a year. We 
have been doing that for 16 years, and we understand this is a program 
we do not need, a program that does not work, but we still want to keep 
funding it and we want to actually enhance it. Now what we want to do 
is go purchase a new airplane, go buy a new airplane for $8 million so 
that it becomes the TV Marti airplane to broadcast signals the Castro 
Government will jam and that the Cuban people cannot see.
  If you sat around a smalltown cafe and talked about this, you would 
not get one person in a million who would say, well, if we have 
something that doesn't work, let's keep doing it; in fact, let's double 
it. Let's do more of it. Almost everyone would say: Are you out of your 
mind? What are you thinking about, funding something that does not 
work? If it is clear it does not work, why does it take you 16 years to 
decide it does not work? And if it does not work, why on Earth would 
you suggest doubling the funding? Yet that is exactly what we have.

  Now, we have people who will, I am sure, defend this, and they will 
say: Well, do you know something? There are some Cubans who say they 
have seen it. We have 19 million people in Cuba, somewhere in that 
neighborhood. I think when the State Department talks about this, they 
say: We have 250 sitings of people who actually have seen Television 
Marti.
  What they were doing is, they were interviewing people off the boats 
coming from Cuba in order to see if they could get some evidence that 
somebody was actually able to see something more than the snow on this 
screen. They got such an embarrassingly small amount of testimony from 
people who have said they could see this, they finally stopped asking 
people. So now there are no surveys because it was too embarrassing to 
get a survey completed that said this is a tragic, complete, total, 
thorough waste of taxpayer money.
  What we have is a bill on the floor of the Senate that promotes the 
President's budget that says we will double funding for this program 
that is a total waste from $10.3 million to $21.1 million in fiscal 
year 2006. And the $10 million increase would go toward buying an 
airplane that would transmit 4 hours of TV broadcast to Cuba each day 
that would be jammed by the Castro Government and that would not be 
able to be received by the Cuban people.
  TV Marti says it could operate a secondhand, modest twin engine plane 
for about $8 million. They would buy it for $8 million, and spend $2 
million a year on the plane. There is not a shred of evidence--not a 
shred of evidence--anywhere that this would put us in a different 
position than now exists. The desire to use, for 16 years, an aerostat 
balloon called Fat Albert, and then the desire to expropriate military 
assets to send a highly specialized military plane, designed for 
psychological warfare, up in the air to broadcast for 4 hours a week 
signals the Cuban people cannot see--it is unbelievable.
  It is one of these things that leads me to say, as I have from time 
to time, that even waste has a strong constituency here in the 
Congress. But from time to time you can see waste for what it is. This 
is evident. It is clear. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. It 
is about whether we want to spend money on something that does not

[[Page S3243]]

work. Do we want to continue to do that?
  My colleague, Senator Wyden, and I say absolutely not. Let's finally, 
finally, finally--after 16 years--have the courage to shut down a 
program that is a total waste of the American taxpayers' money.
  My colleague from New York wishes to, I think at this time, set aside 
and offer his own amendment; and then we will continue the debate with 
my colleague from Oregon immediately after the offering of the 
amendment.
  Let me at this time yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 309

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be laid aside and that amendment No. 309, offered by 
myself and the Senator from South Carolina, be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Dole, Mr. 
     Feingold, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 309.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize appropriate action if the negotiations with the 
 People's Republic of China regarding China's undervalued currency are 
                            not successful)

       On page 277, after line 8, add the following:

                     TITLE XXIX--CURRENCY VALUATION

     SEC. 2901. NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING CURRENCY VALUATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The currency of the People's Republic of China, known 
     as the yuan or renminbi, is artificially pegged at a level 
     significantly below its market value. Economists estimate the 
     yuan to be undervalued by between 15 percent and 40 percent 
     or an average of 27.5 percent.
       (2) The undervaluation of the yuan provides the People's 
     Republic of China with a significant trade advantage by 
     making exports less expensive for foreign consumers and by 
     making foreign products more expensive for Chinese consumers. 
     The effective result is a significant subsidization of 
     China's exports and a virtual tariff on foreign imports.
       (3) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     intervened in the foreign exchange markets to hold the value 
     of the yuan within an artificial trading range. China's 
     foreign reserves are estimated to be over $609,900,000,000 as 
     of January 12, 2005, and have increased by over 
     $206,700,000,000 in the last 12 months.
       (4) China's undervalued currency, China's trade advantage 
     from that undervaluation, and the Chinese Government's 
     intervention in the value of its currency violates the spirit 
     and letter of the world trading system of which the People's 
     Republic of China is now a member.
       (5) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     failed to promptly address concerns or to provide a 
     definitive timetable for resolution of these concerns raised 
     by the United States and the international community 
     regarding the value of its currency.
       (6) Article XXI of the GATT 1994 (as defined in section 
     2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3501(1)(B))) allows a member of the World Trade Organization 
     to take any action which it considers necessary for the 
     protection of its essential security interests. Protecting 
     the United States manufacturing sector is essential to the 
     interests of the United States.
       (b) Negotiations and Certification Regarding the Currency 
     Valuation Policy of the People's Republic of China.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the provisions of title I 
     of Public Law 106-286 (19 U.S.C. 2431 note), on and after the 
     date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, unless a certification described in paragraph (2) has 
     been made to Congress, in addition to any other duty, there 
     shall be imposed a rate of duty of 27.5 percent ad valorem on 
     any article that is the growth, product, or manufacture of 
     the People's Republic of China, imported directly or 
     indirectly into the United States.
       (2) Certification.--The certification described in this 
     paragraph means a certification by the President to Congress 
     that the People's Republic of China is no longer acquiring 
     foreign exchange reserves to prevent the appreciation of the 
     rate of exchange between its currency and the United States 
     dollar for purposes of gaining an unfair competitive 
     advantage in international trade. The certification shall 
     also include a determination that the currency of the 
     People's Republic of China has undergone a substantial upward 
     revaluation placing it at or near its fair market value.
       (3) Alternative certification.--If the President certifies 
     to Congress 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act 
     that the People's Republic of China has made a good faith 
     effort to revalue its currency upward placing it at or near 
     its fair market value, the President may delay the imposition 
     of the tariffs described in paragraph (1) for an additional 
     180 days. If at the end of the 180-day period the President 
     determines that China has developed and started actual 
     implementation of a plan to revalue its currency, the 
     President may delay imposition of the tariffs for an 
     additional 12 months, so that the People's Republic of China 
     shall have time to implement the plan.
       (4) Negotiations.--Beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with 
     the United States Trade Representative, shall begin 
     negotiations with the People's Republic of China to ensure 
     that the People's Republic of China adopts a process that 
     leads to a substantial upward currency revaluation within 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act. Because various 
     Asian governments have also been acquiring substantial 
     foreign exchange reserves in an effort to prevent 
     appreciation of their currencies for purposes of gaining an 
     unfair competitive advantage in international trade, and 
     because the People's Republic of China has concerns about the 
     value of those currencies, the Secretary shall also seek to 
     convene a multilateral summit to discuss exchange rates with 
     representatives of various Asian governments and other 
     interested parties, including representatives of other G-7 
     nations.


                           Amendment No. 284

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be laid aside and we return to the Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I said 19 million Cuban people. I meant 
11 million people who live in the country of Cuba.
  Madam President, before I yield the floor so my colleague from Oregon 
can have the floor, let me say again, I think we will have people come 
to the floor and say: What do you mean ``a waste of money''? We have to 
deal with the Castro government. We have to get tough. We cannot back 
away.
  I do not come to the floor to say anything good about the Castro 
government. The Cuban people deserve to be free and deserve to have the 
boot removed from their neck, the boot of oppression from a government 
that does not allow that kind of freedom.
  But let me say this: This country has stated as its purpose for a 
long while with respect to China and Vietnam, both Communist countries, 
that the road to progress toward democratic reform in those countries 
is through trade and travel and engagement. We have believed that 
fervently, Republicans and Democrats. We trade with Vietnam. We trade 
with China. We travel to both countries. We believe that advances both 
countries toward more human rights and better human rights.
  It is only with Cuba we have this obsession--believing if we can 
track down Americans who attempt to travel in Cuba, and slap them with 
big fines, restrict travel, restrict trade, and somehow waste money on 
things like TV Marti--it is only with Cuba we are obsessed with a 
policy that does not work.
  Fidel Castro has lived through 10 Presidents. The fact is, the 
embargo this country slapped on Cuba is the best weapon he has to 
continue in office, to continue his power in the Cuban government. He 
says it is the 500-pound gorilla up North that has its fist around the 
throat of the Cuban people. It would be much smarter, in my judgment, 
to remove the travel restrictions and all the trade restrictions from 
Cuba and do with Cuba as we do with China and Vietnam. The quickest way 
to move Castro out of Cuba is through trade and travel and engagement, 
and I believe that strongly.
  But this amendment of ours does not address that. It addresses one 
piece of this obsession with Cuba; and that is, the continued spending 
of money for TV signals into the Cuban country that the Cubans cannot 
see. It is one thing to do things that are wrong; it is another thing 
to do things that are dumb. I understand somebody shooting themselves 
in the foot. But after you have done it the first time, to take aim at 
your foot the second time--there is something fundamentally wrong and 
unsound about the thinking that allows you to do that. That is exactly 
what we are doing.
  I will yield the floor so my colleague from Oregon, who is a 
cosponsor of this amendment, can speak.

[[Page S3244]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I tell my colleague, I am pleased to be 
able to team up with him on this effort. Over the last few months, we 
have been digging into a variety of areas where waste of taxpayers' 
dollars has occurred.
  I think Senator Dorgan has made the central argument with respect to 
our amendment; that is, you do not get tough with somebody by wasting 
money. In other words, we are going to have a fair amount of 
discussion, I suspect, on this amendment about whether you are being 
soft minded on Castro, or something of that nature, whether you agree 
with Castro's political agenda.
  What we are talking about is stopping foolishness with respect to 
frittering away taxpayer dollars. As my colleague has said, what we are 
faced with is a situation where Fidel Castro has jammed TV Marti's 
airwaves since their conception. As a result, instead of feeding the 
Cuban people a glimpse of honest television, what we have been feeding 
the Cuban people is static and snow. Now, the snow on Cubans' TV 
screens may be the only snow they get in Cuba, but I can assure you 
this is about the most expensive snow we have seen on the planet.
  What we want to do is protect the interests of taxpayers. We have 
gone through Fat Albert. Now you have the question of the sequel to Fat 
Albert, with the President having proposed slashing other programs, 
particularly programs here at home. How do you argue that something 
such as this ought to be preserved, that the use of taxpayers' dollars 
in this area ought to be preserved, where everything here at home is on 
the chopping block during a belt-tightening environment in Government?
  TV Marti was intended to follow in the footsteps of Radio Marti, 
providing Cubans access to balanced information from the outside world 
so that Cubans living under Fidel Castro's regime would have a taste of 
the freedom that Americans enjoy here at home.
  We are willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion and 
debate we are having on the floor of the Senate that Radio Marti enjoys 
a strong listening audience and successfully transmits news to Cubans 
from the outside world. But the bottom line is, TV Marti has never come 
close--never come close--to meeting the standards of Radio Marti. I 
defy anybody to find a significant group of people in Cuba who see this 
television.
  As Senator Dorgan has mentioned, the process of surveying people, 
which under normal circumstances would be a good way to determine the 
extent of use, has now been hot wired so they do not even do the 
surveys anymore because they are not going to get the results they want 
to have. They want to have surveys that show a significant number of 
people are getting this, and they cannot prove it. So if you cannot 
prove it, you do not put out a survey that says: Oh, no viewers. You 
sort of figure out a way to make the surveys disappear. That is 
essentially what has happened.
  Our discussions and examination, as we have pursued this issue over 
the last few months in an effort to root out this waste, indicates 
virtually nobody sees this. That is where we are now. So we are looking 
at the prospect, after all of this waste of money--well over $100 
million sunk into this static, this static and snow over the years--of 
spending still more money.
  Senator Dorgan and I believe it is time to draw a line in the sand 
and say: Halt this waste. Halt this frittering away of the American 
people's scarce dollars.

  The President does have a new plan to circumvent the jamming. His 
idea is to use military aircraft to broadcast TV Marti that way. We 
have our folks, men and women from Alaska and North Dakota and Oregon, 
and they are in harm's way today. So at a time when our troops are in 
harm's way and face great peril around the world, we are talking about 
transferring military assets that we need to protect their well-being 
and the well-being of this country. I do not see how you can make the 
case again that that is a wise expenditure at this time.
  So I hope as the Senate debates the Dorgan-Wyden amendment, we can 
make it clear that when programs such as Radio Marti work, we are 
willing to make sure the United States plays an active role in trying 
to make sure people have information, accurate, objective information, 
on what freedom is all about. But where you are talking about waste, 
where you are talking about funding programs that may make people say, 
``oh, you're getting tough, you're getting tough on Castro,'' when in 
fact you are wasting money, that is where the two of us are trying to 
blow the whistle and prevent further efforts to throw taxpayers' money 
at TV Marti, when there is no evidence it will work.
  The money we have spent year after year goes, as I have said, to 
finance some of the most expensive static, the most expensive snow in 
the history of television screens. What we ought to be doing is making 
sure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely. Here it could be used in 
a whole host of other areas. It is our hope, and the purpose of this 
amendment, to pull the plug on a program that does not work now, has 
not worked in the past, and is not going to work in the future.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Oregon will 
yield for a question?
  Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I used a picture of Fat Albert, the 
aerostat balloon. I will show that once again. Fat Albert was 
fearlessly broadcasting television signals that no one could receive, 
doing it for 16 years or so. And now, in order to continue broadcasting 
signals no one can receive, we have expropriated the use of the 
Pennsylvania Air National Guard's airplane called Commando Solo, one of 
only a half a dozen ever made, used in Bosnia, used in Iraq, used in 
Afghanistan, for very sophisticated electronic psychological warfare 
purposes. That has been flying now for 4 hours a week, broadcasting 
signals, without any evidence at all that the Cuban people can see 
those signals.
  So we have gone from Fat Albert to Commando Solo and now the next 
step, to purchase a new airplane, to purchase a new airplane so TV 
Marti has its own airplane to broadcast signals no one can see. Does it 
sound a little goofy? It would in my hometown, if you told this story. 
Sometimes there are people who serve here who think they know more than 
anybody else, they can see over the horizon things others cannot see.
  There is a broad common sense in this country that takes a look at 
things like this. And wouldn't it be the case that in a small town cafe 
in Oregon or a small town cafe in North Dakota or Alaska, people would 
take a look at this and say: What on Earth are you thinking about, 
spending money on something we don't need and doubling the funding for 
something that doesn't work? Where have you been? What planet are you 
living on?
  Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the Senator's question. It seems to me that 
this is Government Waste 101. This is not complicated. Since its 
inception in 1980, it appears that this particular program, TV Marti, 
has had essentially no real Cuban viewership. We have been doing 
everything we can to find anything resembling a current study, a 
current report, any body of evidence which would indicate that there is 
an actual market, a group of Cubans who see this.
  As the Senator from North Dakota has indicated in his question, if 
you go into a coffee shop in Alaska or North Dakota or Oregon, this 
program doesn't pass the smell test. People are going to say: Look, we 
don't like Castro. And this isn't a debate about whether you like 
Castro. I have been studying this issue since my dad wrote a book about 
the Bay of Pigs, the untold story. So like many of my colleagues, I 
have been studying this issue for a long time. This is not a referendum 
on whether you are going to be tough on Castro or whether you like 
Castro. This is a referendum on whether we are going to allow millions 
of dollars of Government waste to go forward. We have been doing it for 
years. We should have pulled the plug some time ago. And yet, because 
this program sort of masquerades under the title of being tough on 
Castro, we just keep shoveling money at it.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota, who has spent a great deal of 
time on it. I also want to come back to

[[Page S3245]]

a point the Senator from North Dakota touched on that is very 
important. Personally, a lot of us would like to reexamine our policy 
with respect to Cuba. That is not what this amendment is about. This 
amendment is about one thing: whether we are going to sanction more 
waste. This program doesn't pass the smell test. You wouldn't possibly 
be able to explain it in a coffee shop.
  My hope is that we support real programs, such as Radio Marti, that 
are going to make a difference in terms of getting information to the 
Cuban people about areas where there is waste and not continue to 
fritter away scarce taxpayer resources.
  I thank my colleague for giving me the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. The point I have not made is, we don't propose to spend 
this money in other ways; we simply propose that we strike the funding 
for TV Marti, a program that doesn't work, and thereby reduce the 
Federal indebtedness. So we are not suggesting taking this money and 
spending it in some other way. Get rid of this program that doesn't 
work, that is unneeded, and thereby eliminate at least this small 
amount of Federal indebtedness.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment. It is interesting that just a few minutes ago we were at the 
other end of this building in the House of Representatives in a joint 
session of Congress hearing from President Yushchenko speaking of 
freedom and the value of freedom and the unique opportunity freedom 
presents to a people. In order to ensure the ability of folks to raise 
a family, to conduct their lives, to conduct free commerce, all of 
these exciting things spark and begin with a flame of freedom. There is 
no more important way in which the flame of freedom can be conveyed 
than by information and communication.
  We know that today the world of information transforms lives, 
transforms people around this Earth. We also know that there are still 
people across the world who do not have the opportunity to hear the 
free and unfettered bits of information that we so take for granted.
  Let me take a moment to describe for you a little bit about what Cuba 
is like. Cuba is a country today where there is only one source of 
information: the Cuban Government. Cuba is a country where anyone who 
would dare to use the Internet without authorization from the Cuban 
Government, without oversight by the Cuban Government, would have their 
freedom threatened and taken away. In addition, we also know there is 
within Cuba a tremendous and growing movement of folks who believe that 
it is time for Cuba to be free as well and a dissident movement within 
Cuba. Those people who dare to risk their lives and freedom each and 
every day, those people who today suffer in Cuba's prison camps because 
of their desire to seek freedom, those people are emboldened and 
encouraged by what they can hear and see in the voices and sounds of 
freedom.
  For a long time the United States has had a long and valued tradition 
of standing with people who are oppressed and suppressed. Mr. 
Yushchenko spoke this morning eloquently of the words of Ronald Reagan 
when he said ``tear down this wall'' and what a profound impact that 
had in beginning the change that occurred in the eastern European 
nations.
  In addition to that, we know the words of Vaclav Havel, other leaders 
of the ``Velvet Revolution,'' and also the people of Poland, Lech 
Walesa. And they have said that without a doubt, the thing that made a 
difference in their lives was Radio Free Europe. I have never heard any 
one of these patriots of liberty of the modern day say in any public 
setting that the difference was made for them in seeking freedom when 
more tourists came and drank rum in their country or when they had the 
opportunity to see foodstuff in stores that they couldn't buy. But I 
have heard repeatedly said how valuable was the information and the 
opportunity to pierce that government control over the people.
  You see the control of information is not just about the exchange of 
news and information, valuable as that is. It is about showing the 
people who dare to rise in opposition to tyranny that the tyrannical 
regime that controls their lives is not all powerful, is not 
omnipresent, but that they, in fact, have the right and opportunity to 
hear the message of freedom and liberty.
  Let me talk specifically about TV Marti. The fact is that while we 
might mock in commentary what happens with the TV Marti broadcast to 
Cuba, I have a little different story. Around the time of my ascension 
to the U.S. Senate, when I had this awesome and unique privilege, the 
first Cuban American, the first person born in the island of Cuba to 
ever have the honor to speak from this floor, to be a part of this 
longest serving democratic institution in the history of mankind, the 
people of Cuba were rightfully proud and excited by that moment.

  I want to tell you that about the time of my taking my oath, I did an 
interview for TV Marti. I spoke of my thrill and my pride and my hopes 
and aspirations as I came to the Senate. That interview was broadcast 
by Commando Solo. That interview was broadcast in the only way in which 
they can pierce Castro's control over his people about information: by 
flying this airplane over international waters in a way that can and 
does, in fact, pierce Castro's blockade and jamming.
  That information that got through that night, that interview was seen 
by people in the hometown where I grew up, Sagua La Grande, Cuba. It is 
a small city on the northern coast of Cuba where I had the joy of 
growing up as a small child and where today there are people who still 
remember me and my family, and where there were people who, 
unbelievably to me, heard the broadcast and were able to communicate 
through telephone and otherwise about what they had seen and heard on 
TV that day, about the images of me taking my oath on this very floor, 
about the images of me celebrating with other people who supported my 
candidacy, who came from Florida, many of them Cuban Americans who rode 
on a bus for 18 hours to come here and join with me and celebrate.
  They joined with me here, but those people in Cuba had the 
opportunity to see those images in my very hometown where I was born, 
to see me take the oath of office from Vice President Cheney, President 
of the Senate. That happened because of the Commando Solo flights. It 
was a moving experience to the people in this little town, the people 
who I know sometimes seem unimportant and are not very well known but 
who, in fact, have the rare opportunity to see that blockade pierced.
  So what is our hope? Our hope is we can expand that, that we can do 
more of it, that we can transfer the technology we now have and the 
ability to pierce the information blockade so that more and more people 
can have this information. Too often we talk about an economic blockade 
with Cuba. The greatest blockade that exists in Cuba, in the words of 
some of Cuba's dissidents, is the blockade of the Cuban Government 
against its own people, whether it be for economic opportunity, the 
rights of the individual, or just to perceive and hear information that 
comes across the airwaves.
  I believe that while imperfect and while still a work in progress, 
for us to turn our backs on those people in Cuba who depend today on 
the little bit of information they can get through Radio and TV Marti 
would be a step away from the long and proud tradition of this country 
to stand by people who are oppressed. To harken back to the words of 
President Bush, to the words he gave upon taking office for his second 
term, if you are oppressed, we stand with you. If you seek freedom, we 
will be by your side. That wave of democracy that President Bush has 
begun in places such as the Middle East, that is the very hope that we 
have.
  The President's policy toward Cuba began on May 10 of last year. It 
is a dynamic policy. It is not just about what we don't do; it is about 
what we do, about the proactive measures such as the Commando Solo 
flights, the opportunity for TV Marti to, in fact, be seen by the Cuban 
people, the opportunity for us to help the dissident movements, for us 
to proactively help the people of Cuba to remove the yoke of tyranny 
from their backs.

[[Page S3246]]

  I believe that when the facts are examined, we would also know that 
the Interests Section Survey in Havana monitors the ability of the 
Commando Solo flights to be seen by the Cuban people. There is no such 
thing in Cuba as a Gallup poll or the ability to even speak freely 
about what you watch on TV, but 16 percent of those surveyed responded 
in the affirmative to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana that they 
were, in fact, seeing TV Marti and that it reached an audience. It does 
not cover the entire island. It doesn't cover as much as we would like. 
But each and every day, we make more happen with it.
  I am proud to be a supporter of the efforts of TV Marti, and I urge 
my colleagues to defeat this amendment which would end the little 
glimmer of light that is available to the people of Cuba today and that 
otherwise would not be there for them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself 
such time as I may consume on this amendment by the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment and continue to support our country's investment in 
television broadcasting into Cuba. Otherwise known as TV Marti. The 
Senator from North Dakota may be exaggerating, and folks get carried 
away as well. He will say that this is not needed. This is needed. 
There may be a question as to how effective the TV Marti signal is 
getting in to Cuba.
  Because we are talking about signals and broadcasts, let's make sure 
we are sending the right signal here. Whether it is my good friend from 
Oregon or whether my friend from North Dakota, we all, I would hope, 
want to make sure we are standing strong on the ability of people who 
are repressed and under the tyranny of Castro, to get information.
  There are questions as to whether all the ways that we are trying to 
get around the jamming and scrambling of signals by Castro's regime are 
effective or not; however, it is a matter of our national interest that 
we try to get information, objective information, to the people of 
Cuba. It doesn't matter one's culture. All human beings, no matter 
their background or culture, if given the choice, the opportunity, will 
choose freedom. We have seen it with the Afghan people. We have seen it 
with the people in Iraq. We are seeing it with the Lebanese rising up 
to get the Syrian troops out. We have seen it with the Palestinians, 
with the death of the corrupt terrorist Arafat. The same applies to the 
people of Cuba, or anywhere else in the world. The Cuban people share 
the desire that all human beings have, and that is a need to have 
information and an opportunity to determine their own destiny.
  I believe that Radio Marti and TV Marti can help promote freedom and 
justice in Cuba. We all know the United States has sponsored television 
and radio broadcasting in Cuba for almost 20 years. The effect of all 
of that--and we can all try to find measurements. It is not as if you 
can go around Cuba and do surveys. This is not allowed. Remember, this 
is Castro's regime. If I want some evidence of a probative witness, I 
am going to listen to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, who made 
history, standing here as the first person ever born in Cuba to be 
elected to serve in the U.S. Senate. He understands the impact of our 
message to Cuba better than anybody or any statistics one would want to 
put forth.
  So while we understand it is very difficult to get into Cuba and make 
sure of the effectiveness of TV or radio broadcasts, it is well known 
that Radio Marti--and to the extent we can get TV Marti in--is looked 
upon as an authoritative and reliable source of accurate, objective, 
and comprehensive news for the Cuban people.
  If this Congress were to eliminate TV Marti, we would be sending the 
wrong message to the Cuban people. At a time when freedom is on the 
march around the world, eliminating TV Marti would tell the Cuban 
people--I suspect Castro would be getting his minions and fellow thugs 
of that regime out to say the United States isn't going to bother. We 
succeeded with jamming or scrambling the signals, saying the United 
States doesn't want to worry about this. It would be a signal for him 
to say that the United States is not committed to the cause of freedom 
in Cuba. Of course, with his long history of repressing free speech and 
the free flow of information and ideas in Cuba, this plays right into 
Castro's hands.
  Thomas Jefferson once said:

       A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws 
     of nature, and not as a gift of their chief magistrate.

  The sharing of information and free flow of ideas, and the foundation 
of any free country is not to be something that is given or taken away 
by the machinations of a dictator like Castro.
  In my view, there are four pillars of a free and just society. This 
is how I measure freedom myself for people if they are living in a free 
and just society. The first pillar is freedom of religion, where 
people's rights are not enhanced or diminished because of religious 
beliefs; second, freedom of expression; third, private ownership of 
property; fourth, the rule of law, where disputes are adjudicated 
fairly and God-given rights are protected. The second pillar, freedom 
of expression, is absolutely essential, where people are allowed to get 
information and to think for themselves. To communicate not in a way 
that is harmful, but the God-given rights of expression being 
protected.
  We have to support the opportunity of the people of Cuba to get 
information. They are not going to get it from their Government. People 
will say, gosh, we are having to use airplanes. There are different 
ways you have to get at it. You cannot use balloons or a dirigible; you 
cannot do it off of broadcasting. Why can't we use it the way everybody 
else sees TV? It is because of that regime. Sometimes you have to be 
more clever than some of the reptilian cutthroats that we are dealing 
with. In my view, we ought to stand for the concept of freedom of 
expression. We have seen it work and we have seen it on Radio Marti. I 
hate wasting money, but there are certain things we need to do. This is 
actually a less expensive way of advocating freedom, by using 
technology--using extraordinary means, but still getting the message to 
the people of Cuba, regardless of the obstacles that are established by 
Castro's regime. I think we need to be providing news, commentary, and 
promoting the open exchange of information and ideas in Cuba and 
elsewhere to promote the cause of freedom.
  To be effective in further opening communications and the sharing of 
ideas throughout Cuba, Radio and TV Marti must continue to be broadcast 
and should receive our country's support. I sincerely urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment and stand with the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Martinez, but, most importantly, stand for the advancement 
of freedom.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, is 
recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, the business before us is the 
Dorgan amendment, which strikes $21 million from the President's budget 
and prevents the funds from being used for the broadcast of TV Marti.
  You can say I have a parochial interest in this, being the senior 
Senator from Florida, joining my colleague, Senator Martinez. Indeed, 
we do have a parochial interest because we have quite a few Cuban 
Americans who are citizens of our State. But the reason we should 
defeat this amendment goes far beyond parochial interests, or any 
interest of any particular group, for it strikes at what the heart of 
America stands for in our promotion of freedom--freedom of speech, 
freedom of assembly, freedom of the press--all of these freedoms that 
we are privileged to have, protected by our Constitution, which 
supposedly are protected under the Cuban Constitution, but have never 
been protected.
  This amendment sends the wrong message to the Cuban people at a time 
when change is in the wind, when in fact change is occurring on the 
island. This amendment would cut the entire budget for TV Marti.
  It would also prevent the Broadcast Board of Governors from 
purchasing a small aircraft that they will use to transmit the signals. 
The aircraft is

[[Page S3247]]

equipped to broadcast both television and radio signals. Eliminating 
this funding would also limit the U.S. radio broadcast operations. 
Current broadcasting operations, including radio, are conducted from a 
Department of Defense EC-130 Commando Solo aircraft. It is based, 
interestingly, in Harrisburg, PA. It has to fly every Saturday all the 
way from Pennsylvania down to the Florida Keys for its mission. It 
makes a lot more sense for the Broadcasting Board of Governors to have 
a smaller aircraft that is located close to Cuba, being more economical 
and still having the same equipment.
  This station and this money shows our commitment to the Cuban people 
as they continue to suffer under a dictatorship that ignores human 
rights and imprisons political dissidents. We simply should not be 
turning our backs on Cubans at a time when the regime is beginning to 
crack and a fledgling civil society is emerging.
  Look, for example, at what has happened in the last couple of years. 
The Senate has heard me speak many times on the floor about this very 
brave Cuban named Oswaldo Paya and the Varela Project; where Cuban 
citizens put their name on a petition to the Government. Interestingly, 
this is under a process of the Cuban Constitution that said if you get 
10,000 signatures--and they got well over that--that automatically an 
issue goes to the Government. The petition calls for freedom of 
expression, freedom of association, free enterprise, electoral reform, 
and also calls for elections within 1 year.
  Have those brave Cubans who stood up suffered reprisals and 
intimidation by the Cuban security forces? You bet they have, and some 
of them went to jail. And only because the international community 
raised Cain were some of the dissidents released when, in fact, others 
are still in jail. But they were brave, and they went ahead and signed 
that petition that was generated by Oswaldo Paya. This type of 
dissident action is supported and promoted through TV Marti.
  Some say all of these signals have been jammed. They have been jammed 
because they were either being transmitted from a stationary tower or 
they were being jammed when they tried to start transmitting from a 
satellite in the eastern Atlantic. This new airplane has only been 
flying since the fall of last year. We have to give it a chance to see 
if the signals are getting through. Now we will do it more economically 
with the smaller aircraft.
  I will give another example of what is happening on the island in 
addition to the Varela Project. There are others in Cuba who are coming 
together to create civil society groups advocating for basic human 
rights and changes in the Cuban Government's structure. On May 20, next 
month, these groups will come together for the first time ever in 
Havana for a historic meeting to openly discuss and debate the future 
of the island and a transition after the future death of Castro.
  TV Marti has produced a series of TV programs, including a 10-part 
series in which experts discuss a possible transition to democracy. 
That needs to be out there to be received by the Cuban people.
  These are just some of the historic changes that are occurring on the 
island. These are the reasons that, maintaining our commitment to the 
freedom-loving Cuban people, we need to continue to broadcast TV Marti 
to Cuba.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Senators, we need your 
help. Senadores, necesitamos su ayuda.
  I yield to my colleague from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question? 
I wonder if the Senator has considered why the Cuban Government would 
spend all the money and make all the effort that it takes for them to 
jam these broadcasts. If it is not insignificant, if it is not 
important, why does the Senator think the Cuban Government goes on day 
after day jamming at great cost and expense each and every time we have 
broadcasts to Cuba?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I say to my colleague from 
Florida, the proof is in the pudding. Absolutely, the Castro Government 
for years has continued to try to jam broadcasts, and the fact is that 
we know the broadcasts of Radio Marti get through to the island. 
Broadcasting by this airplane is a new means by which we can get the 
transmission of TV Marti into the island. This clearly is what America 
stands for.
  I am going to close. I see the chairman of our Foreign Relations 
Committee wanting to be recognized. I say to Chairman Lugar, when I was 
17 years old, I was taken, representing the youth of America, to 
Germany to broadcast over Radio Free Europe behind the Iron Curtain on 
a broadcast that years later we found out, much beyond my little 
broadcast, had a profound effect in bringing information to people who 
were enslaved behind the Iron Curtain. That was effective.
  I think this is going to be effective in Cuba behind that iron 
curtain that enslaves those people on the island of Cuba.
  Therefore, it is my hope, my prayer, that we will continue this 
effort, particularly where there are the beginning signs of liberty 
striking out all over the island.
  I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the esteemed 
Senator from Indiana, for the opportunity to speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, there has been a good debate on this 
amendment. It is an important amendment. I just wanted to make the 
point, however, that we have reached a point in our bill where we are 
going to have to move expeditiously; therefore, I move to table the 
amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this moment there is not a sufficient 
second.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. I simply wanted 5 minutes to respond to some of what has 
been said. I have no objection at all to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I would like an additional 5 minutes as 
coauthor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the motion to table has been made. If we 
did it 5 minutes, 5 minutes, and then the vote?
  Mr. LUGAR. OK.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota 
be recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from Oregon for 5 minutes, the 
Senator from Indiana for 1 minute, and then we vote on his motion to 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I regret that we have a disagreement on 
the Senate floor, but I am not surprised. I would like to make a couple 
of comments. First, those who have opposed this amendment apparently 
have tried to win a debate we are not having. This debate is not about 
nurturing the flame of freedom. It is not about resisting tyranny. All 
of that is wonderful. I could stand here and tell a story about Vaclav 
Havel on a late night on a street corner in Prague, Czechoslovakia, 
hearing the Declaration of Independence for this country being recited 
by someone in Czechoslovakia. I could tell a story about Lech Walesa 
and what he did to light the flame of freedom in Poland, but I will not 
do that. That is not what this debate is about.
  My colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, talked about how 
important these television signals are and that is why the Castro 
Government jams them each and every day. That is the point he made. 
That is exactly the point I was making.
  If, in fact, these are jammed--and they are--let me read the expert 
from the U.S. Government. He says: Even though TV Marti is jammed, it 
is well positioned to be an important instrument of U.S. foreign policy 
or a crisis will occur on the island. Transmission to Cuba ``has been 
consistently jammed by the Cuban government.'' That is a U.S. official 
saying that. So we spend $10 million a year to send television signals 
no one can receive in Cuba to a Fat Albert, the aerostat balloon, and

[[Page S3248]]

now we have decided we are going to Commando Solo, a C-130 specially 
equipped.
  By the way, there is no new technology here. I know several people 
have said this is new technology. Nonsense. This is plain old-fashioned 
waste of the taxpayers' money by now using a C-130 airplane to send 
television signals into Cuba the Cubans cannot receive. This is the 
same technology that is used by Fat Albert, the aerostat balloon. We 
have been doing it for 16 years. We have wasted $189 million.
  I support Radio Marti. I have been to Cuba. That gets through to the 
Cuban people. I believe we ought to remove the embargo and allow trade 
and travel to Cuba. That is the quickest way to get rid of Fidel 
Castro, but that is not even the subject. The subject is will this 
Congress, when they see colossal waste, fraud, and abuse, stand up and 
decide to stop the spending?
  When we talk about freedom, the question is this: Is there freedom 
from waste, fraud, and abuse for the American taxpayer? Does that 
freedom exist? If it does, will we decide to take that step in this 
vote?
  I started this morning by saying even waste has a constituency in the 
Congress. It seems to me quite clear that we have had our colleagues 
say: Well, this is not perfect. Not perfect? What do they mean, not 
perfect? We broadcast television signals that the receivers cannot get 
and spend $10 million a year, and now we are going to double funding 
with the ``purchase of a small airplane''? Eight million dollars to buy 
a new airplane now to broadcast signals the Cubans cannot receive? We 
are going to double the funding? I am sorry. This is simply wasting the 
taxpayers' money.
  I am all for doing things that remove the boot of oppression from the 
necks of the Cuban people, but I am not for wasting the taxpayers' 
money. We have been told now by the opponents of this amendment that 
this would send a bad message if we cease TV Marti, sending signals 
they cannot receive. Stopping that would send a bad message. That is 
the point of all of this, is it not?
  Are we sending a message or are we not? The point of it all is we are 
spending a lot of money believing we are sending a message that is 
never received. Sending a message to someone who does not receive it, 
sending a message by aerostat balloon or by a C-130 or by a new $8 
million airplane to 11 million people who cannot see it is 
fundamentally foolish.
  Where is the freedom from waste, fraud, and abuse that the American 
people ought to expect from this Congress? We will see whether that 
freedom exists in the next 5 or 10 minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Senator yields.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we conclude with this amendment, I 
particularly thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for this 
extra time and get back to this question of what the amendment is 
really all about. I do not quibble at all with the fact that this is a 
laudable effort to promote freedom, as the Senator from Florida is 
talking about, but I believe it has to be about more than effort; it 
has to be about a result.
  For example, something that strikes me as something that would be 
very useful is to set up Internet Marti. We have seen, for example, 
what happened in China. What really rattled the Chinese Government was 
the presence of the Internet. As far as I can tell, they have been 
struggling to block that out as well. They have not been able to do 
that. But that is the kind of investment that would make sense to me.
  I would be thrilled to work with the distinguished Senator from 
Florida on wireless technology, for example. I have served on the 
Commerce Committee. I have a great interest in technology. I think 
there is a lot of potential as it relates to these kinds of concerns: 
wireless technology, Internet Marti.
  What brings us to the floor today is that we talk about the flicker 
of freedom, which I am certainly for. As far as I can tell, the only 
thing the Cuban people see flickering is all that static on TV. So I 
hope we can save some money, which is the point of this amendment 
Senator Dorgan and I have offered, and then counsel together on a 
bipartisan basis through the chairman of the committee, Senator Lugar, 
Senator Martinez, our friend Senator Nelson, on something that would be 
practical. Sign me up for something like Internet Marti, something that 
would be a well-targeted investment, would allow us to build on the 
potential to cap other technologies, wireless technologies, Web-based 
technologies. That is something that seems to me makes sense.
  I hope my colleagues will approve this money, allow us to start 
targeting these Government expenditures during a time of belt-
tightening in a more cost-effective way.
  I urge the passage of the amendment, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the President of the United States has 
directed deployment of aircraft with capability of transmitting radio 
and television signals into Cuba. Thanks to the aircraft, plus Radio 
and TV Marti, they are reaching parts of the island that were 
previously unable to receive those signals. That is tremendously 
important.
  As oppressive as that regime is, the state exerts extensive 
censorship. The Cubans are told only what the state wants them to know 
and are denied the right to obtain accurate information on Cuba and the 
world. We need to do all we can to open that up.
  I appreciate the debate. It has offered avenues of constructive 
criticism of the program, but the program needs to continue. It is 
vital to our security and, we believe, the future of the Cuban people.
  I renew my request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 284.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in a moment I want to ask the Chair to 
recognize Senators Schumer and Graham for an amendment on Chinese 
currency. Before I ask the Chair to do that, let me simply indicate 
that the status of our bill is such that amendments that clearly fall 
in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee are going to be opposed 
not only by that committee but by the so-called blue-slip process, 
which means that our bill might not receive consideration on the floor 
of the Senate or ultimately on the floor of the House.
  So leaving aside the substance of whatever may be the merits of an 
amendment, we are talking about an existential question for this bill 
itself as to whether it survives or has the hope of doing so.
  For that reason, I just want to advise Senators why, at the end of 
about 40

[[Page S3249]]

minutes of debate, which I hope will be adequate for an exploration by 
the proponents of what they wish to do, I will be moving to table, to 
preserve really, this bill, the bill we are on. At that point I will 
ask the support of the body to table the Schumer-Graham amendment, 
whatever might be its merits, on the basis of jurisdiction.
  We are going to have this problem two or three more times on 
amendments that have been suggested by Senators. So I make that point 
now, that will have to be the course of this chairman to preserve at 
least some hope we will have an authorization bill at all at the end of 
this process.
  Having said all that, I am hopeful the Chair might recognize Senators 
Schumer and Graham for a presentation of their amendment. And after 
about 40 minutes, we will come to a conclusion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before that, will the Senator yield? I had 
spoken to the Senator from Indiana about perhaps taking 3 to 4 minutes 
before they start on another matter. I ask unanimous consent, if I 
might, to be recognized for not to exceed 4 minutes. I assure the 
Senator it will not be beyond that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. Proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Indiana for 
his usual courtesy.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                           Amendment No. 309

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I call up amendment 309.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Schumer-
Graham, et al., amendment that would authorize actions in currency 
negotiations with China. I have come before the Senate on a number of 
occasions to speak about how strongly I feel against providing 
permanent normal trade relations to China. The Chinese have been 
systematically devaluing their currency, and they have been buying up 
dollars. This is all done in a concerted effort to keep their goods 
cheaper than United States goods.
  This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed how the 
Chinese behaved over the years. China's human rights record, their 
antagonism toward Taiwan, and the threat they pose to our own national 
security have been well documented. These issues have been swept under 
the rug as the Senate has given away its voice on our trade 
relationship with the most populous nation on the globe. For me it 
looks as though we are simply putting profits over people. That is 
plain wrong.
  Now we have a chance to correct that. The amendment before the Senate 
will give the administration a real tool to deal with the Chinese. The 
Chinese need our markets to sell their goods. If we take it away from 
them, we will have their attention. Hopefully this amendment will show 
the Chinese we are serious this time and that they need to play fair 
and let the market set the value on their currency.
  Those opposed to the amendment will talk as if the American economy 
will be seriously harmed if we pass the amendment. I argue our economy 
is already being harmed. We are losing manufacturing jobs as a direct 
result of Chinese policies. The Chinese are killing what is left of our 
domestic textile industry. Hopefully, the U.S. Trade Representative's 
office will step in. It sounds as though they will. But we are 
dangerously close to losing what few textile jobs we have left in 
Kentucky, and I know other States are in the same boat.
  For those who are not concerned about China's human rights, foreign 
policy, and trade record, let's take another cold, hard look at the 
facts. China operates one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, 
brutalizing its own people and persecuting people of faith. China ships 
weapons of mass destruction to terrorist states. China threatens other 
freedom advocates such as Taiwan and snubs its nose at the 
international community by occupying Tibet. China tried to buy access 
to our Government through illegal campaign contributions and to 
influence our elections.
  The trade deficit with China has grown to record heights. For over a 
decade, the supporters of free trade with China have been making the 
arguments over and over again that China is changing, that things are 
getting better, and that we will soon reap the benefits of free trade 
with China. The facts prove them wrong. It has been over 10 years since 
Tiananmen Square and the Chinese are still oppressing their own people. 
They are still selling weapons to terrorists. They are still bullying 
other nations and threatening Taiwan and United States interests in the 
Pacific. Nothing is any different with China now. In fact, it might be 
worse.
  Those who say otherwise are fooling themselves. We are seeing a march 
of freedom around the world--in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Orange 
Revolution in the Ukraine, whose President addressed Congress today, 
the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and other prodemocracy revolutions. We 
have seen that the time of the oppressive regimes is coming to an end. 
It is time to stop propping up the Communist government of Red China. 
Vote for the Schumer-Graham, et al. amendment and tell the Chinese our 
Government will no longer support tyranny. Vote for this amendment for 
the sake of America's economy and our workers. Vote for this amendment 
because it is the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. What is the status of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time control.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We are trying to do the debate within 40 minutes. That 
was our goal.
  Mr. SCHUMER. No time limit, but we will try to keep it to 40 minutes. 
Great.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment of which my friend from 
Kentucky is a cosponsor. The lead sponsor of this legislation is 
Senator Graham as well as myself. What this legislation does is simple. 
It says to the Chinese, enough already. It says to the Chinese that 
their unfair trade policies have got to end. It says to the Chinese, 
this is a shot across your bow. Reform because if you don't, there are 
going to be dramatic consequences throughout the world, in our country, 
and in your country as well.
  The bottom line is very simple: The Chinese have enjoyed a huge trade 
surplus with the United States, as this chart shows. Every year it gets 
larger and larger and larger. Admittedly, some of that trade surplus is 
due to the rules of free trade. But much of that trade surplus is 
because the Chinese don't play fairly. They don't let our goods into 
their country. I can tell you of company after company in New York that 
cannot sell goods in China or can only sell the goods under certain 
conditions that make it impossible for them to sell them.
  The Chinese make no effort to prevent the ripping off of our 
intellectual property. These are our crown jewels, the great 
creativity, the great entrepreneurialness of the American business 
community that is taken, and they shrug their shoulders. And worst of 
all, the Chinese, despite the fact that they have tremendous advantages 
by the rules of free trade, pile on unfair rules that violate free 
trade.
  At the top of that list is the fact that the Chinese peg their 
currency abnormally low so that their exports get a 27-percent 
advantage in the United States; our imports get a 27-percent 
disadvantage when sold in China. Every tenet of free trade, if you 
believe in it, says they should not peg their currency.
  Senator Graham and I have foreborn. We were asked by the 
administration last year: Let us negotiate. I agreed. Negotiating would 
be better. But nothing happened. The Chinese give lipservice and don't 
change their trade policies a jot.
  What does this mean for America? It means a huge job loss.
  We have suffered dramatically in manufacturing jobs, and now service 
jobs and other jobs. It means we have a huge trade deficit. It means 
the dollar

[[Page S3250]]

sinks to abysmally low levels, threatening our wealth. It creates chaos 
in the whole world trading system. The euro and the yen bear the 
pressure of the Chinese currency evaluation against the dollar.
  We are fed up. This is a measure that should not have to be on this 
floor. The Chinese should play by the rules once and for all. How can 
we stand by as millions of American workers lose their jobs, as 
thousands of American companies cannot compete fairly, as our country 
as a whole has wealth drained from it?
  The U.S.-China Commission, set up by this and the other body to try 
to bring fair trade to China, believes this is the best way to go. The 
list of manufacturers, business leaders, and labor leaders who support 
this legislation is long and large. It is a bipartisan amendment. 
Senator Graham and I have endeavored to pick up equal amounts of 
support from each side of the aisle. No one seeks political advantage. 
What we seek, rather, is fairness--fairness in trade, not in the sense 
of saying we don't want free trade, but in the sense of playing by the 
rules.
  The Chinese do not play by the rules. We have talked and talked and 
talked, as a nation, to them, with other nations of the world. We have 
talked and talked to the Chinese until we are blue in the face. The 
time for action is now. If not now, when? If not us, who? Millions of 
American workers, thousands of American businesses, look to us to try 
to set things right. Today, by passing the Schumer-Graham amendment, we 
can do that. My guess is this would not have to become law. As soon as 
it passes this body, the Chinese will actually start to negotiate in 
earnest. But as long as they think all we do is wield words and do 
nothing to prevent these practices from continuing year after year 
after year, they will not budge. So it has come to this.
  This amendment is probably one of the most important amendments we 
will vote on this year in this session of the Senate. I urge my 
colleagues to study it, to not put off the hour of decision, and to 
support the Schumer-Graham amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, first, I acknowledge that it has been a 
pleasure to work with Senator Schumer and others to develop this 
amendment. We have been involved in this effort for 2 years. We come 
from different ends of the political spectrum on many issues, but we 
found common ground here because we hear the comments, whether it is in 
South Carolina or New York, from manufacturing entities and other 
business people basically saying China has a business relationship that 
we cannot compete with. The political dynamic here is real.
  Senator Lugar explained how this amendment affects this bill. I want 
to let him know I totally understand that. We are now basically running 
out of options. As Senator Schumer said, whether this amendment becomes 
law is probably not the point. The point is that the Chinese need to 
understand where the Senate and House stand. The President spoke 
numerous times about trying to get China to change the value of the 
currency. Secretary Snow has been to China and brought up this topic. 
There has been a begrudging movement in words but none in deeds. Talk 
is literally cheap with the Chinese. Their money is cheaper and it is 
having an effect on our economy and world relationships that need to be 
met with decisive political action, because the truth is, for the last 
decade we have had a very mixed message when it comes to China--both 
Republicans and Democrats. The only thing the Chinese understand is 
resolve. The one thing this country has had, when it comes to China in 
terms of trade, is the lack of resolve.

  No one is advocating building a wall around our country. China 
presents a great opportunity for American business. What we are 
advocating is allowing China to become part of the world community 
under the same set of rules we all abide by. They are missing the mark 
by miles. The money they are making off these trade agreements, where 
they cheat, is not going into the hands of the everyday Chinese worker; 
it is going into their military. If we had the same approach during the 
Soviet Union era by having trade deals with the Soviet Union that would 
be constantly violated, enriching the government, the Soviet Union 
would never have collapsed.
  China's Communist government is taking the benefit of these trade 
deals and enriching their military and growing in economic and military 
strength in the way that I think hampers freedom. It doesn't help 
spread it. Here are the facts. Since March, 2002, the U.S. dollar has 
fallen 30 percent against the euro. You know what that has done against 
the yuan? Not one change. Thirty percent against the euro, but no 
change against the yuan. They always create an advantage. When we 
passed normal trading relations with China in 2001, the trade deficit 
was $100 billion; today it is $160 billion--a 60-percent increase of a 
trade imbalance since PNTR was passed.
  Now, is our market access improving? There is a 5-percent increase of 
American goods going to China. If you don't believe me and Senator 
Schumer, and you think we are advocating a protectionist philosophy 
that is antiquated and outdated in the 21st century, maybe you will 
believe the U.S.-China Commission, which was authorized and empowered 
by the Congress, the Senate and the House, to investigate China's 
business dealings, their trade policies.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

U.S.-China Commission Releases Findings and Recommendations on China's 
                               WTO Record

       The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has 
     released the official record of its two-day public hearing 
     held on February 3 and 4, 2005 in Washington, DC examining 
     China and the WTO: Assessing and Enforcing Compliance.
       The hearing examined China's record of compliance to date 
     with its WTO commitments and explored options for using U.S. 
     trade laws and WTO mechanisms to address continuing trade 
     problems, including China's undervalued currency and weak 
     enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) 
     protections. The Commission heard testimony from senior 
     Administration officials, industry groups, labor 
     organizations, economists, and trade law experts, as well as 
     a bipartisan group of Members of Congress from both the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate.
       There was a general consensus among the witnesses that 
     China remains in violation of its WTO obligations in a number 
     of areas impacting vital U.S. economic interests. Witnesses 
     highlighted China's undervalued currency and lack of IPR 
     protections and expressed the view that U.S. government 
     efforts to move China to address these serious problems have 
     not achieved satisfactory results. The hearing also dealt 
     with the application of U.S. trade remedies. The Commission 
     heard testimony that the Administration has not effectively 
     utilized available U.S. anti-dumping laws and China-specific 
     import safeguards to counter China's unfair trade practices.
       ``It has become increasingly clear that China is not 
     meeting key commitments it made when joining the WTO and that 
     our trade laws have to date been insufficient in addressing 
     these problems,'' said Commission Chairman C. Richard 
     D'Amato. ``In some cases our trade remedies need to be 
     enhanced, in other cases they have been woefully 
     underutilized. The end result has been a trading relationship 
     that is undermining important U.S. economic interests.''
       In response to these concerns, the Commission has developed 
     a comprehensive set of recommendations to the Congress 
     designed to improve the use of U.S. trade remedies and to 
     move China toward more effective compliance with its WTO 
     commitments. A list of the Commission's recommendations is 
     attached.
       The complete hearing record is available on the 
     Commission's web site at www.uscc.gov. Copies may be obtained 
     by calling the Commission at (202) 624-1407.


                Addressing China's Currency Manipulation

       The Commission recommends that Congress pursue the 
     following measures to move China toward a significant near-
     term upward revaluation of the yuan by at least 25 percent.
       Press the Administration to file a WTO dispute regarding 
     China's exchange rate practices. China's exchange rate 
     practices violate a number of its WTO and IMF membership 
     obligations, including the WTO prohibition on export 
     subsidies and the IMF proscription of currency manipulation.
       Consider imposing an immediate, across-the-board tariff on 
     Chinese imports unless China significantly strengthens the 
     value of its currency against the dollar or against a basket 
     of currencies. The tariff should be set at a level 
     approximating the impact of the undervalued yuan. The United 
     States can justify such an action under WTO Article

[[Page S3251]]

     XXI, which allows members to take necessary actions to 
     protect their national security. China's undervalued currency 
     has contributed to a loss of U.S. manufacturing, which is a 
     national security concern for the United States.
       Reduce the ability of the Treasury Department to use 
     technical definitions to avoid classifying China as a 
     currency manipulator by amending the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act 
     to (i) include a clear definition of currency manipulation, 
     and (ii) eliminate the requirement that a country must be 
     running a material global trade surplus in order for the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to determine that the country is 
     manipulating its currency to gain a trade advantage.


        Addressing Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Violations

       The Commission recommends that Congress urge USTR to 
     immediately file one or more WTO disputes pertaining to 
     China's violation of its WTO IPR obligations, particularly 
     China's failure to meet the requisite standards of effective 
     enforcement, including criminal enforcement.


                 Treating China as a Nonmarket Economy

       The Commission recommends that Congress require that the 
     Department of Commerce obtain Congressional approval before 
     implementing any determination that a nonmarket economy such 
     as China has achieved market economy status. Congress should 
     ensure that China continues to be treated as a nonmarket 
     economy in the application of antidumping and countervailing 
     duties through 2016, as is explicitly permitted by China's 
     WTO accession agreement, unless China clearly meets the 
     statutory requirements for market economy status.


                         WTO Dispute Resolution

       The Commission recommends that Congress establish a review 
     body of distinguished, retired U.S. jurists and legal experts 
     to evaluate the dispute resolution mechanism at the WTO. The 
     review body would consider all decisions made by a WTO 
     dispute settlement panel or appellate body that are contrary 
     to the U.S. position taken in the case. In each instance, a 
     finding would be made as to whether the WTO ruling exceeded 
     the WTO's authority by placing new international obligations 
     on the United States that it did not assent to in joining the 
     WTO. If three affirmative findings were made in five years, 
     Congress would be prompted to reconsider the relationship 
     between the United States and the WTO.


           Enhancing the Effectiveness of U.S. Trade Remedies

       The Commission recommends that Congress authorize 
     compensation to petitioners in the Section 421 safeguard 
     process for legal fees incurred in cases where the ITC finds 
     that market disruption has occurred but the President has 
     denied relief. Congress should also consider eliminating 
     presidential discretion in the application of relief through 
     Section 421 petitions or limiting discretion to the 
     consideration of non-economic national security factors.
       The Commission recommends that Congress maintain the 
     Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA or 
     the ``Byrd Amendment''), notwithstanding the WTO's ruling 
     that the law is inconsistent with WTO requirements, and 
     accept any retaliatory tariffs that may ensue as the U.S. is 
     permitted to do under its WTO obligations. Congress should 
     press the Administration to seek explicit recognition during 
     the WTO's Doha Round negotiations of the right of WTO members 
     to distribute monies collected from antidumping and 
     countervailing duties to injured parties.
       The Commission recommends that Congress clarify without 
     delay the authority of the Committee on the Implementation of 
     Textile Agreements (CITA) to consider threat-based petitions 
     for use of the China-specific textile safeguard negotiated as 
     part of China's WTO agreement.
       The Commission recommends that Congress direct the 
     Department of Commerce to make countervailing duties 
     applicable to nonmarket economies to provide an additional 
     tool to combat China's use of government subsidies for its 
     exporters.
       The Commission recommends that Congress repeal the ``new 
     shipper bonding privilege'' that has allowed many importers 
     of Chinese goods to avoid payment of antidumping duties. 
     Importers of goods subject to anti-dumping or countervailing 
     duties should be required to deposit in cash the amount of 
     any estimated applicable duty.


                Countering China's Government Subsidies

       The Commission recommends that Congress direct USTR and 
     Commerce to investigate China's system of government 
     subsidies for manufacturing, including tax incentives, 
     preferential access to credit and capital from financial 
     institutions owned or influenced by the state, subsidized 
     utilities, and investment conditions requiring technology 
     transfers. The investigation should also examine 
     discriminatory consumption credits that shift demand toward 
     Chinese goods, particularly as a tactic of import 
     substitution for steel, Chinese state-owned banks' practice 
     of noncommercial-based policy lending to state-owned and 
     other enterprises, and China's dual pricing system for coal 
     and other energy resources. USTR and Commerce should provide 
     the results of this investigation in a report to Congress 
     that assesses whether any of these practices may be 
     actionable subsidies under the WTO.

  Mr. GRAHAM. What do they tell us? There was a general consensus among 
the witnesses--they held 2 days of hearings--that China remains in 
violation of its WTO obligations in a number of areas impacting vital 
U.S. economic interests:

       It has become increasingly clear that China is not meeting 
     key commitments it made when joining the WTO and that our 
     trade laws have to date been insufficient in addressing these 
     problems.

  They lay out the problems: China currency manipulation, intellectual 
property theft; treating China as a nonmarket economy; lack of 
enforcement of U.S. trade remedies that are on the books; China 
subsidies to businesses that are in violation to WTO.
  We have had a very tepid response to China's cheating across the 
board and we are paying a huge price. Many Americans are losing jobs 
not because they are being outworked, or because the Chinese are 
smarter, but because they are being cheated out of their jobs. One way 
is that the Chinese have taken the value of their currency and 
artificially suppressed it, creating a discount on every product coming 
out of China to the detriment of American manufacturing and the world 
community at large, and all we do is talk to China.
  A lot of people are depending on us to do something about China in a 
constructive fashion. Is this the best way to have done it? No. This is 
the only way I know of, after 2 years, to get anybody's attention, our 
attention or China's attention. We passed a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution in 2003 that was a compromise that Senator Schumer and I 
made. OK, let's get the Senate on record. It was a sense of the Senate, 
and no one objected that China is manipulating its currency in 
violation of international norms and it costs Americans jobs. That was 
2 years ago.
  Last year, we were going to put it on the FSC/ETI bill. Everybody 
said you are going to mess up the bill. So we had a colloquy with 
Senator Grassley, who is a good friend, and we talked about holding 
hearings and we talked about engaging China anew, because we didn't 
want to mess up the bill by bringing this bill forward. That was over a 
year ago. Not one thing has changed--not one hearing--and the problem 
gets worse and worse. The balance of trade between us and China is 
absolutely shameful. We are doing nothing about it other than talking.
  Well, this amendment does something about it other than talking. Let 
me tell you what the U.S.-China Commission said about currency 
manipulation.

       The commission recommends that Congress pursue the 
     following measures to move China toward a significant near-
     term upward reevaluation of the yuan by at least 25 percent.

  We look moderate compared to the United States-China Economic 
Security Review Commission.

       Consider imposing an immediate, across-the-board tariff on 
     Chinese imports unless China significantly strengthens the 
     value of its currency against the dollar or against a basket 
     of currencies.

  The experts tell us the yuan is 15 to 40 percent below its true 
market, causing havoc on American manufacturing.

       Reduce the ability of the Treasury Department to use 
     technical definitions to avoid classifying China as a 
     currency manipulator. . . .

  They have a list things for us to do. One is imposing an across-the-
board tariff. What I and Senators Schumer, Bunning, and others are 
suggesting we do is put China on notice: In the next 6 months, allow 
China to move toward reevaluation in a way that will help the American 
economy, will make China a true, fair member of nations, and if they do 
not act in the next 6 months in some significant way, then we will look 
at the ability of this country to protect ourselves against a Communist 
dictatorship that cheats. And if the Senate is not here to protect the 
American worker against a Communist dictatorship that cheats, what the 
heck are we here for?
  I hope we will send a message to China they can understand because 
apparently they do not understand what we are saying any other way.
  I have enjoyed this experience working in a bipartisan fashion to 
stand up for American business interests that are being cheated out of 
jobs because of a Communist dictatorship that cheats and is building up 
their military at our expense.

[[Page S3252]]

  To the American manufacturing community, there are a million other 
ways we can help. I talked with Governor Engler today. We are going to 
do more domestically and internationally to level the playing field, 
but this is a significant start. Will it solve all the problems? No. 
Will this put China on notice as they have never been put on notice 
before? Yes. And if we fail to adopt this message, we are also sending 
a message to China. I am not sure that is a message the American worker 
can stand having sent to China.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the 
sponsors of the bill, S. 600--the amendment is identical to the bill--
be added to amendment No. 309.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Further, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin's 
name be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burr 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Senator 
Burr will be added as a cosponsor.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like a followup to some of the 
comments the Senator from South Carolina has made in reference to our 
legislation.
  First, I will mention the cosponsors of this bill, in addition to 
Senator Graham and myself, as well as Senator Bunning. They are: 
Senator Reid, the minority leader, Senator Bayh, Senator Dodd, Senator 
Burr, Senator DeWine, Senator Stabenow, Senator Mikulski, Senator 
Johnson, Senator Kohl, and Senator Feingold, and there are others as 
well. Senator Dole I know is a cosponsor as well on the main bill. Now 
she is added to this amendment as well.
  Mr. President, we have asked over and over again those who have said, 
Don't do this amendment, we know your intention is good, but don't do 
it, we have asked them over and over, What do we do? Secretary Snow 
called Senator Graham and me and asked us not to do the amendment, give 
them a chance to negotiate with the Chinese. That was over a year ago.
  You may recall before he even set foot in China, as his plane was in 
the air, the Chinese Government announced: Do not even try to negotiate 
on this; we are not changing. We are going to keep pegging our 
currency--which devalues our currency.
  I sat down with a group of leading New York business people. It was 
at the invitation of one of them who gathered the group of very bright 
men in an effort to persuade me not to be for this amendment. After an 
hour and a half, they all agreed it was the right thing to do because 
we made the argument to them that day that if you believe in free 
trade, you cannot have one of the largest trading countries abjectly 
violating the rules. It does not work. It does not work for China, it 
does not work for America, and it does not work for the rest of the 
world.
  If anyone doubts that the Chinese really play fair, let me mention 
one little story, and this is the kind of thing that drives us crazy. 
There is a company in Cortland, NY, called Marietta. Cortland has had 
tough times. It is an industrial town. Smith Corona used to make 
typewriters there. It obviously does not do that anymore. Buckbee-Mears 
had a big ball bearing plant, and that closed. The one saving grace of 
Cortland was Marietta, which kept growing.
  Marietta makes a product we all use. They are the manufacturer of the 
little soaps and little shampoos that you get when you go to hotels and 
motels. The way Marietta gets its business, the chairman told me, is 
that they go to the big hotel companies, such as Hilton, and they say: 
You pick the color of the soap and the smell of the soap, and we will 
make sure it is in every room. That is how they have Hilton and other 
big companies as their customers.
  Only one country does not allow Marietta to import its soap and its 
shampoo--China. When the president called me and I visited the plant up 
in Cortland, NY, 30 miles south of Syracuse, he told me that the 
Chinese now do their own business in China. They are using that 
protected market in China to compete with Marietta now in Southeast 
Asia, in Europe, and soon in America.
  I said: Why don't you file with the WTO?
  He said: I will get an answer in about 8 years, and I will be out of 
business.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I could not agree more with 
what Senator Graham said. We must do something. This is the best thing 
to do. It is certainly a lot better than what we have been doing over 
the last 2 years, which is absolutely nothing.
  I urge, on behalf of free trade, on behalf of the world system that 
really works, and on behalf of saying to countries, You have to play by 
the rules to gain the benefits, you should not have a $162 billion 
trade surplus and not play by the rules, I urge them to support the 
amendment on which Senator Graham and I have worked so long and hard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I, too, believe in free trade, but I 
share Senator Schumer's thoughts and Senator Graham's ideas. A great 
nation such as China needs to understand it has moved to a different 
level, that it sells an incredible amount of products to the United 
States of America, and what they do with the value of their currency 
impacts that trade.
  What they have done is not sound policy. Because I believe in free 
trade, I believe it is not even going to be good for China. It is 
certainly not good for the United States today.
  I do not want to be involved in telling a nation what their currency 
ought to be. I know the Senator from New York and the Senator from 
South Carolina do not believe they should, but this is reality.
  We are not talking about theory. We moved beyond theory. It is jobs. 
It is trade. It is a deficit trade that we have with China to an 
extraordinary degree that continues to grow. So I thank the Senators 
for their efforts, and I would be pleased to support their amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I do not believe we have any more speakers on deck.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as I indicated at the outset of the debate, 
as we asked recognition of the Senators who have spoken so eloquently 
on this amendment, the issue before the Senate is the preservation of 
the authorization bill itself that we are debating. The issue has been 
often expressed, but let me mention it again, that the Finance 
Committee claims jurisdiction of this item. They also have indicated, 
both on the Senate and House sides, that they will prevent passage of 
the authorization bill for the State Department and foreign assistance 
if this item and, for that matter, several others that have been 
included in prospective amendments are adopted as a part of this bill.
  I will not debate the merits of the amendment on China. We have had a 
hearing before our Foreign Relations Committee and delved into what is 
clearly a very complex and important issue. I do know, however, that 
even as we had the hearing for our own information and that of the 
public, we understood the jurisdictional question. We have tried to 
respect that. Therefore, on this amendment and on others that also are 
clearly in the jurisdiction of the Finance or of other committees, I 
feel compelled, for the sake of preserving this bill, to move to table 
the amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3253]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Wyden

                                NAYS--67

     Akaka
     Allen
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I voted for Senator Schumer's and 
Senator Graham's China currency amendment even though I prefer my own 
legislation, S. 377, on this issue, which is consistent with our 
international obligations. Nonetheless, I supported this amendment to 
send a message to the administration that the time for action on 
currency manipulation has come.
  I acknowledge that if passed, this legislation may be disruptive to 
our trade obligations. But as noted economist Fred Bergsten wrote in 
the Financial Times on March 15, the world economy would suffer from a 
rapid and precipitous decline in the U.S. currency. Such a shock could 
drive up interest rates and curb U.S. growth to the detriment of all 
our trading partners.
  These risks are greatly exacerbated by the growing U.S. current 
account deficit and the connected actions by some countries, including 
China, that are blocking the orderly adjustment of the U.S. dollar by 
their direct currency intervention. It is long past time for market 
forces to be allowed to work and time for the administration to press 
this issue. I note that if national security problems arise, the 
President under the amendment has waiver authority.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. LUGAR. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. LUGAR. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection. The clerk will continue 
calling the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts and 
the Senator from New Jersey would they be in agreement that a 15-minute 
presentation at this point would be possible, and then they would yield 
to me? I make this request because we have an existential crisis with 
the bill. Unless we solve it, we will probably not be continuing. This 
is serious. I understand you have an important colloquy. If it can be 
contained in 15 minutes, that would be fine.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We appreciate the opportunity that the Senator has 
given us.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could we ask then that the Senator from Indiana be 
recognized after 15 minutes to take whatever action is necessary?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as 
has been mentioned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                     Independence Of The Judiciary

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to discuss the situation that 
is developing, questioning the value of the separation of powers, about 
whether one of the powers has rights that succeed the powers of the 
other. Particularly, my subject now regards the judiciary and whether 
it is a free, unencumbered judiciary, as it ought to be.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator from New Jersey be kind enough to yield 
for a brief observation and question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey is addressing 
the Senate on a very important issue, the independence of the 
judiciary. I think this is an important statement. Many of us have been 
deeply concerned by statements that have been made recently by 
Congressman Tom DeLay, who used the words, ``The time will come for men 
responsible for this to answer for their behavior,'' in relationship to 
the decision of the courts in the Schiavo case. The Senator from Texas 
has also mentioned and talked about the judiciary in a similar vein 
this week..
  I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times editorial, regarding 
these statements be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 6, 2005]

                       The Judges Made Them Do It

       It was appalling when the House majority leader threatened 
     political retribution against judges who did not toe his 
     extremist political line. But when a second important 
     Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against 
     judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then 
     it is time to get really scared.
       It happened on Monday, in a moment that was horrifying even 
     by the rock-bottom standards of the campaign that Republican 
     zealots are conducting against the nation's judiciary. 
     Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, rose in the chamber 
     and dared to argue that recent courthouse violence might be 
     explained by distress about judges who ``are making political 
     decisions yet are unaccountable to the public.'' The 
     frustration ``builds up and builds up to the point where some 
     people engage in'' violence, said Mr. Cornyn, a former member 
     of the Texas Supreme Court who is on the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee, which supposedly protects the Constitution and its 
     guarantee of an independent judiciary.
       Listeners could only cringe at the events behind Mr. 
     Cornyn's fulminating: an Atlanta judge was murdered in his 
     courtroom by a career criminal who wanted only to shoot his 
     way out of a trial, and a Chicago judge's mother and husband 
     were executed by a deranged man who was furious that she had 
     dismissed a wild lawsuit. It was sickening that an elected 
     official would publicly offer these sociopaths as examples of 
     any democratic value, let alone as holders of legitimate 
     concerns about the judiciary.
       The need to shield judges from outside threats--including 
     those from elected officials like Senator Cornyn--is a 
     priceless principle of our democracy. Senator Cornyn offered 
     a smarmy proclamation of ``great distress'' at courthouse 
     thuggery. Then he rationalized it with broadside accusations 
     that judges ``make raw political or ideological decisions.'' 
     He thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, suggesting 
     that the Supreme Court be ``an enforcer of political 
     decisions made by elected representatives of the people.'' 
     Avoiding that nightmare is precisely why the founders made 
     federal judgeships lifetime jobs and created a nomination 
     process that requires presidents to seek bipartisan support.
       Echoes of the political hijacking of the Terri Schiavo case 
     hung in the air as Mr. Cornyn spoke, just days after the 
     House majority leader, Tom DeLay, vengefully vowed that ``the 
     time will come'' to make the judges who resisted the 
     Congressional Republicans' gruesome deathbed intrusion 
     ``answer for their behavior.'' Trying to intimidate judges 
     used to be a crime, not a bombastic cudgel for cynical 
     politicians.
       The public's hope must be that Senator Cornyn's shameful 
     outburst gives further

[[Page S3254]]

     pause to Senate moderates about the threats of the majority 
     leader, Senator Bill Frist, to scrap the filibuster to ensure 
     the confirmation of President Bush's most extremist judicial 
     nominees. Dr. Frist tried to distance himself yesterday from 
     Mr. DeLay's attack on the judiciary. But Dr. Frist must carry 
     the militants' baggage if he is ever to run for president, 
     and he complained yesterday of ``a real fire lighted by 
     Democrats around judges over the last few days.''
       By Democrats? The senator should listen to what's being 
     said on his side of the aisle, if he can bear it.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I draw to the attention of the Senate 
that today the Judicial Conference has asked the White House and the 
Senate for $12 million to help protect judges from violence. When we 
see leaders in Congress making statements which clearly have incited, 
or threaten to incite, violence against judges, the same judges, 
honorable men and women appointed to uphold America's laws and ideals, 
who are living in fear of violence, we must be concerned.
  The Judicial Conference is requesting $12 million to provide 
protection for the American judiciary. What in the world is this 
Congress and this Senate coming to? I think it is appropriate for the 
leaders and other members in this body and the House to tone down their 
rhetoric, and avoid the threats to the American judiciary. I think that 
is absolutely unconscionable.
  When you have the Judicial Conference asking for this, that indicates 
where the judges themselves--made up of Republicans and Democrats--are 
coming from. I intend to offer an amendment on the supplemental to 
positively respond to their request and to get the $12 million. I am 
interested if my friend from New Jersey would cosponsor that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I would be pleased to. Mr. President, I ask the 
Senator from Massachusetts, why should we be surprised they ask for 
more protection? We have seen atrocious assaults on members of the 
bench and their families.
  What we see is, I think, the beginning of a firestorm, and the 
problem is that the fuel is being provided by comments made here and in 
the other body.
  I start off by reading from article III, section 1 of the U.S. 
Constitution. It says:

       The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in 
     one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the 
     Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

  It is pretty clear to me. It says judicial power is vested in our 
courts, not in the Congress. The Constitution gives the Senate a role 
in the appointment of judges, and we are supposed to provide advice and 
consent, not direction. But once a judge is seated on the bench, his or 
her decisions are not subject to our approval.
  The Founding Fathers, in their brilliance, set it up that way on 
purpose. They wanted to make sure that court decisions would be based 
on legal grounds, not political grounds. But today there is an 
orchestrated effort to smear the reputation of the judiciary, 
especially Federal judges. And the effort is being waged by Republicans 
in Congress as a prelude to an attempt to change the rules for 
confirming judicial nominations.
  In order to justify this nuclear option, they are trying to paint 
judges as ``activists'' and ``out of control.''
  In reality, it is the leadership of this Congress that is out of 
control and endangering the future of a fair court system.
  In this Chamber on Monday, one of our colleagues said Americans are 
becoming frustrated by the rulings of the judges--so be it; that is all 
right, you can be frustrated as much as you want--but then he accused 
the judges of making ``raw political or ideological decisions.'' That 
was in the quote from our colleague's statement.
  He went on to say:

       I wonder whether there may be some connection between the 
     perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges 
     are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the 
     public . . . that it builds up and builds up and builds up to 
     the point where--

  Listen to this--

     where some people engage in violence.

  These are comments made by a Senator. The remarks are almost 
unbelievable. Yet they echo the words last week of the House majority 
leader. Speaking of the judges in the Schiavo case, the House majority 
leader said:

       The time will come for the men responsible for this to 
     answer for their behavior.

  What does that imply? These are inflammatory words. They ignore the 
fact that our Founding Fathers wanted judges to be insulated from 
political pressure, and they are words that could easily incite 
violence against judges.
  On this past Sunday, a columnist in the hometown newspaper of the 
House majority leader, the Houston Chronicle, wrote:

       It is time for him to stop sputtering ill-tempered threats, 
     not only at the judiciary but also at the U.S. Constitution, 
     which he repeatedly has sworn to uphold.

  There were two matters that made things worse, two recent episodes to 
which the Senator from Massachusetts made reference involving violence 
against judges and their families. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the 
husband and the mother of a Federal judge who had ruled against him in 
a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away 
from a deputy, killed four people, including the judge presiding over 
his rape trial. Is that what these people see? Is that what our 
colleagues saw? Is that what the House majority leader saw, an 
opportunity to take revenge on judges who make decisions with which 
they disagree? What are we, some lawless nation where if you do not 
like it, you kill the person who did it?

  Were these judges who suffered terribly while performing their 
official duties activists? Were they out of control?
  The message being sent to the American people by the other side of 
the aisle is not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous to our 
Nation's judges.
  Like the nuclear option, the goal here is to have judges make 
political decisions rather than legal decisions. They are trying to 
intimidate sitting judges, and they are trying to change Senate rules 
to get bad judges on the bench.
  I vow to fight this nuclear option, as well as these irresponsible 
threatening statements. I do that for my family and for American 
families across this country.
  In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses 
justice. In this country, any attempt to intimidate judges not only 
threatens our courts but our fundamental democracy as well.
  I note that a letter was sent out most recently by the distinguished 
majority leader. It is dated March 31, 2005. He invites colleagues--it 
says: ``Get a Fresh Perspective on Our Nation's''--this is on the 
majority leader's stationery--``Get a Fresh Perspective on Our Nation's 
Religious Heritage with a Special Tour of the U.S. Capitol'':

       Dear Colleague: I am writing to invite you and your family 
     to a private tour of the U.S. Capitol Building with 
     WallBuilders' President, David Barton, on Monday, April 11, 
     2005. The walking tour will commence at my office--

  And he identifies the location of his office and the time, and then 
adds:

       David Barton is the founder and President of WallBuilders, 
     a national pro-family organization which distributes 
     historical, legal, and statistical information, and helps 
     citizens become active in their local schools and 
     communities. He is an historian noted for his detailed 
     research into the studied the religious heritage of our 
     nation. Among some of the interesting facts made by Mr. 
     Barton:
       The U.S. Capitol served as a church building for decades.
       The first English-language Bible in America was printed and 
     endorsed by the United States Congress.
       The original Supreme Court--composed of numerous signers of 
     the Constitution--began their sessions with ministers coming 
     in and praying for the Court, the jury, and their 
     deliberations.

  The majority leader goes on to say:

       You will also learn inspiring stories behind the faces, 
     paintings, and statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and view 
     original documents from George Washington and others . . . 
     which are depicted in artwork. . . .

  I have read something of Mr. Barton's biography:

       Mr. Barton intends to prove that the separation of church 
     and state is a myth, and that America's Founders intended for 
     the United States to be a Christian nation.

  Does that mean those of us who are not Christian--whether Muslim, 
Jewish, or some other religion--are not part of this great nation?
  The majority leader is the one making this suggestion. Mr. President, 
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

[[Page S3255]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 31, 2005.

   Get a Fresh Perspective on Our Nation's Religious Heritage With a 
                    Special Tour of the U.S. Capitol

       Dear Colleague: I am writing to invite you and your family 
     to a private tour of the U.S. Capitol Building with 
     WallBuilders' President, David Barton on Monday, April 11, 
     2005. The walking tour will commence at my office, S-230 of 
     the U.S. Capitol at 6:00 p.m. and conclude at 7:00 p.m.
       David Barton is the founder and President of WallBuilders, 
     a national pro-family organization which distributes 
     historical,legal, and statistical information, and helps 
     citizens become active in their local schools and 
     communities. he is an historian noted for his detailed 
     research into the religious heritage of our nation. Among 
     some of the interesting facts covered by Mr. Barton:
       The U.S. Capitol Building served as a church building for 
     decades.
       The first English-language Bible in America was printed and 
     endorsed by the United States Congress.
       The original Supreme Court--composed of numerous signers of 
     the Consititution--began their sessions with ministers coming 
     in and praying over the Court, the jury, and their 
     deliberations.
       You will also learn inspiring stories behind the faces, 
     paintings, and statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and view 
     original documents from George Washington and others (some 
     that are over 400 years old) which are depicted in artwork 
     throughout the Capitol.
       If you and your family would like to participate, contact 
     Brook Whitfield in my office at 202-224-0948 or 
     [email protected] to RSVP. I look forward to 
     seeing you then.
           Sincerely,
                                            William H. Frist M.D.,
                                     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I quote from this report:

       Now Barton appears to be angling for a spot on the national 
     stage. He is touring the nation again, this time with 
     financial support from the Republican National Committee as 
     part of what is described as a larger get-out-the-vote 
     effort.
       As he tours the country, Barton leads pastors in sessions 
     examining the role Christianity played in America's founding 
     and puts forth his usual shaky thesis. But Barton doesn't 
     stop there. Barton's not-so-subtle message is that America's 
     Christian heritage is at risk--and only voting Republican can 
     save it.

  I want those who hear me across America to pay attention: ``Christian 
heritage is at risk.'' That means that all the outsiders, all of those 
who approach God differently but are people who believe in a supreme 
being; people who behave and live peacefully with their neighbors and 
their friends. No, this is being put forward as an attempt--a not too 
subtle attempt--to make sure people understand that America is a 
Christian country. Therefore, we ought to take the time the majority 
leader offers us, as Members of the Senate, for a chance to learn more 
about how invalid the principle of separation between church and state 
is.
  I hope the American public sees this plan as the spurious attempt it 
is.
  I ask my colleagues if they want to go to a Christian-only spokesman 
who will tell us about how insignificant the separation between church 
and state is. The question is fundamental to the Constitution. Are we a 
country of laws? If we are, then we must respect the law and we must 
hold the law free from threats.
  How does it feel when one looks at the Federal judge in Chicago who 
had her husband and her mother murdered because someone disagreed with 
her legal decision? How do we feel about seeing this guy break loose in 
Atlanta and kill the judge and a deputy? Senator Kennedy just mentioned 
the fact that there was a $12 million request for security for judges 
and courtrooms. I do not blame them. This is not some lawless country 
where if a judge makes a decision he better run for his life; nor is it 
Iraq, where those who are upholding the law are getting killed because 
other people disagree with them. We should not stand for this.
  I ask the majority leader to withdraw that invitation to tour the 
U.S. Capitol with this man who says that this should be a Christian-
only country. How can he dare undermine the principles that are in our 
brilliant Constitution that was written so many years ago? We are 
entering a dangerous period, in my view.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, work continues among a number of Senators 
who are deeply interested, as I am, in the resolution and the amendment 
ahead of us. For the moment it appears we ought to give more time to 
this discussion. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The quorum call will 
be continued.
  The legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in a moment I am hopeful the Chair may 
recognize the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, for 10 
minutes in which he will offer an amendment. On our side, we are 
prepared to accept the amendment. Therefore, we will at least make some 
progress while the other discussion continues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 318

  Mr. Dodd. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD], for himself and 
     Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 318.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To specify requirements under the Arms Export Control Act 
applicable to the VHXX Executive Helicopter Program (also known as the 
              Marine One Presidential Helicopter Program).

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXII, add the following:

     SEC. 2239. APPLICABILITY OF ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT 
                   REQUIREMENTS TO VHXX EXECUTIVE HELICOPTER 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Treatment as Cooperative Project.--The VHXX Executive 
     Helicopter Program (also known as the Marine One Presidential 
     Helicopter Program) shall be treated as a cooperative project 
     for purposes of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 
     et seq.) as authorized under section 27 of that Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2767).
       (b) Licensing and Notice Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Any licensing and notice to Congress 
     requirements that apply to the sale of defense articles and 
     services under the Arms Export Control Act shall apply to any 
     foreign production (including the export of technical data 
     related thereto) under the VHXX Executive Helicopter Program 
     without regard to any dollar threshold or limitation that 
     would otherwise limit the applicability of such requirements 
     to such production under that Act.
       (2) Notice to congress.--Notwithstanding the treatment of 
     the VHXX Executive Helicopter Program as a cooperative 
     project for purposes of the Arms Export Control Act under 
     subsection (a), section 27(g) of that Act (22 U.S.C. 2767(g)) 
     shall not be applicable to the program, and the notice 
     requirements of subsections (b) and (c) of section 36 of that 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) shall be complied with in the issuance 
     of any letters of offer or licenses for the program as 
     required by paragraph (1).
       (c) Limitation on Issuance of Licenses.--No license may be 
     issued under the Arms Export Control Act for any portion of 
     the VHXX Executive Helicopter Program, including research and 
     development and the sharing of technical data relating to the 
     program, until each participant in the program agrees, in 
     writing, not to enter into any contract, or otherwise do any 
     business, with any party who is subject to the jurisdiction 
     of a country that supports international terrorism for five 
     years after the date of the completion of the participation 
     of such participant in the program.
       (d) Country That Supports International Terrorism 
     Defined.--In this section, the term ``country that supports 
     international terrorism'' means any country whose government 
     has repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism for purposes of either of the provisions of law as 
     follows:
       (1) Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)).
       (2) Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2371).


[[Page S3256]]


  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in order to move things along in time, I 
appreciate the willingness of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee to accept the amendment. It is very simple 
amendment.
  It says that foreign companies involved in developing the President's 
Marine One helicopter must pledge in writing that they will not conduct 
business with state-sponsors of terrorism during the contract and 5 
years after it has been completed. Moreover, it provides that those 
involved in building such technologies will be subject to at least the 
same export licensing requirements as other defense projects built 
jointly by the U.S. and foreign manufacturers, as governed by the U.S. 
Arms Export Control Act.
  The principle is clear, and hardly controversial. I am sure my 
colleagues will agree that there are few more sensitive and more 
important national security concerns than the safe transport of our 
country's chief executive. But the aircraft we are talking about today 
is far more than a mode of transportation. It will be outfitted with 
some of the most advanced technology available to ensure secure 
communications and easy maneuvering to avoid any possible threats from 
the ground and air. As long as the President is in flight, this 
aircraft will be a global nerve center, with critical information 
constantly flowing in and essential decisions flowing out. This 
aircraft needs to be safe and secure, and well-equipped to ensure 
secure communications. For obvious reasons, the technology making this 
happen needs to be protected at all costs.
  We cannot afford to let America's enemies gain access to any of this 
critically important technology. That is why companies involved in 
developing Marine One cannot be allowed to have any relations with our 
most dangerous adversaries. Such relations might present opportunities 
for the sharing of designs or materials with state-sponsors of 
terrorism.
  Armed with such information, terrorists could learn about the 
vulnerabilities of the Presidential helicopter, and attempt to 
intercept critical communications or effectively target our President 
from the air or from the ground.
  My amendment also says that when it comes to this critically 
important technology, there should be no chance that anyone wishing 
America harm could gain access to our most sensitive secrets. When it 
comes to this critical defense system, there should be no exceptions to 
our export licensing.
  It may come as a surprise to some that this amendment would even be 
necessary, but it should not come as a surprise that Senator Lieberman, 
my cosponsor on this amendment, and I are deeply concerned about what 
could happen. But I am afraid that troubling reports have surfaced 
about a European partner in the manufacturing team recently awarded the 
contract to build Marine One. As many of my colleagues know, Agusta 
Westland, an Italian-British consortium, was tasked with building this 
helicopter's basic design as well as manufacturing approximately 30 
percent of the aircraft's components, including the rotor blades to be 
built in Yeovil, England, and the main transmission, to be constructed 
in Cascina Costa, Italy.
  Obviously, I have some local interests in this case. The Navy 
selected the European/American team over the Connecticut-based, All-
American Sikorsky team which has administered the Marine One contract 
for about 50 years. Truth be told, I believe that Sikorsky has a better 
performing, more experienced aircraft team as well as a superior 
design. But my concerns go beyond parochial interests, and even the 
technical merits of the aircraft. I am gravely troubled about the 
impact this contract award will have on the United States' ability to 
stay competitive in the global helicopter industry. But more 
importantly, I am deeply troubled that the European partner in the 
winning contractor team is currently considering conducting business 
with a sworn enemy of the United States--the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  I have here a list of companies who recently attended an air show in 
Kish, Iran, exhibiting their wares, and soliciting business from the 
Iranian Government. Listed at number 50 on this list is Agusta Westland 
as well as its parent company Finneccanica at number 52. We do not know 
what they were marketing at their exhibits during the January 18-21 
trade show, but it is surely the view of this Senator that no 
government manufacturer of such sensitive technology as the U.S. 
Presidential helicopter has any business even entertaining the idea of 
doing business with state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.
  How can we allow the chance that a sworn adversary of the United 
States like Iran could gain access to America's most sensitive defense 
technologies? I know that my colleagues are keenly aware of the history 
of Iran's government, dating back to the taking of American hostages in 
1979 and the installation of a brutal fundamentalist dictatorship. But 
let me be utterly clear about the threat that we are dealing with here. 
We are talking about one of the three members of what President Bush 
referred to as ``the Axis of Evil.'' This is how the State Department 
described U.S. relations with Iran in its most recent Iran country 
report:

       As a state sponsor of terrorism Iran remains an impediment 
     to international efforts to locate and prosecute terrorists . 
     . . The U.S. Government defines its areas of objectionable 
     Iranian behavior as the following: Iranian efforts to acquire 
     nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; Its 
     support for and involvement in international terrorism; Its 
     support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace 
     process; and Its dismal human rights record.

  President Bush himself referred to the threat posed by Iran in his 
most recent State of the Union address, stating:

       Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of 
     terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people 
     of the freedom they seek and deserve.

  Unclassified intelligence reports have attributed dozens of acts of 
international terrorism to the Iranian government or surrogate 
terrorist groups since the 1990s. One such Iranian surrogate is Islamic 
Jihad, also known as Hezbollah, which publicly has claimed 
responsibility for a number of attacks on innocent civilians throughout 
the world from Argentina to Israel. And they continue to prosecute 
attacks in Israel, and threaten instability in Lebanon.
  Meanwhile, terrorists are moving in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan 
across Iranian borders, attacking U.S. troops with either Tehran's 
support or outright sponsorship. And today, as we entrust the security 
of our President and our most sensitive national security secrets to a 
major European subcontractor, we are facing the prospect of having such 
a critical U.S. defense system shared with one of the America's gravest 
adversaries.
  The stakes could not be any higher. We cannot afford to allow 
critical American technology to fall into the hands of terrorist 
states. And we cannot allow those who wish us harm access to 
information on any aircraft that would be carrying the President of the 
United States.
  For these reasons, I am offering this amendment which, I repeat, 
addresses two critical concerns that I have raised here today:
  First, my amendment forbids any company involved in building the 
Marine One aircraft from conducting business with a state sponsor of 
terrorism; second, it subjects the Marine One contract to standard 
export controls governing joint U.S.-foreign defense programs, waiving 
exemptions provided to companies from NATO countries.
  I know that there are some who might object to this provision as 
being too harsh on our allies, particularly since it eliminates waiver 
protections pertaining to companies in NATO countries. But the honest 
and sobering reality is that I am not proposing anything nearly as 
drastic as what our NATO allies are currently doing in the conduct of 
their own defense contracts.
  Unlike the legitimate security concerns I have voiced here on the 
floor today, our European friends are currently banning non-European 
helicopter manufacturers from even competing for bids in their 
countries, simply in order to protect their domestic defense industry. 
As this chart demonstrates--in the market for medium lift helicopters, 
the U.S. has been banned from even bidding for contracts with the 
governments of the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Norway, the 
Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Greece.

[[Page S3257]]

  My amendment does not attempt to impose the same protectionist 
measures that these countries have imposed. This measure is critically 
important in safeguarding secrets that are fundamental to our Nation's 
government. It will ensure that no person with access to our most 
sensitive national security technologies has the opportunity to share 
these critical secrets with those who would wish us harm. We are simply 
standing up for the most sensitive security interests of our nation and 
the safety of our President.
  Anything less would be reckless and a dereliction of our duty as 
Americans.
  I merely point to this fact. Nothing in this amendment would suggest 
we ought to keep them out of our own country, but we ought to be aware 
that, while we are talking about free trade, in the European nations 
themselves a United States firm cannot even get in the bidding process. 
So there are other reasons why this amendment ought to be adopted.
  I urge my colleagues to do so, and I thank the chairman of the 
committee for supporting the amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as I indicated at the outset, we are 
prepared on our side to accept the amendment. Therefore, I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 318) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment has the effect of placing a 
serious impediment, if not an absolute block, against the United States 
proceeding to fulfillment of a contract entered into by the Department 
of Defense--more specifically, the Navy Department having been the 
executive agent on this contract--for the procurement of the 
replacement helicopters commonly referred to as marine I. It is the 
fleet that serves the President primarily and others associated with 
the White House.
  This contract was in negotiation for over a year. It was an open and 
free competition. So far as I know there was no question raised against 
the contract being awarded to the winning company, a U.S. company, 
together with a consortium of overseas participants with, nevertheless, 
the U.S. company being the lead company.
  The amendment was drafted to the Arms Export Control Act and it is 
intended to prevent the Navy from going forward with this acquisition 
program. This is a matter that is clearly within the jurisdiction of 
the Armed Services Committee. Normally, we consult committees before 
acting.
  I do not fault the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. I think at the time this was done very hastily, it was not 
clear to the staff and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 
that it was within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. 
Otherwise, I would have come over to the floor earlier.
  Now, the amendment having been adopted, I, together with my two 
distinguished colleagues from New York, Senators Clinton and Schumer, 
will address this matter tomorrow or during the course of the further 
consideration of the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act. But I can 
assure you, we will employ every parliamentary device available to us 
to see that this matter is rectified because I think it was not done in 
a manner that is consistent with what we normally do around here by way 
of procedures. Secondly, I think it is detrimental to the whole 
performance of the contracting and procurement responsibilities of the 
Secretary of Defense.
  So for the moment, for those interested in this contract, let it be 
known there is a group of us who are going to have this reexamined and, 
if necessary, take it to the full Senate for consideration before this 
bill is finally acted upon.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LUGAR. I am advised the distinguished Senator from Illinois has a 
statement he would like to make at this time. I ask the Chair to 
allocate 5 minutes to the Senator and then to recognize me following 
that statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wonder if I might be recognized after 
the distinguished chairman, Chairman Lugar.
  Mr. LUGAR. I amend my request that after I am recognized, the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President I ask that the Chair now recognize the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama. I understand he will discuss 
amendments but not offer them at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share some comments about a 
matter which I became aware of recently. I think it is rather dramatic, 
and it is a matter which this Senate should deal with.
  The United Nations is planning to renovate the United Nations 
Headquarters Building in New York. The New York Sun reports that they 
are projecting to spend $1.2 billion to renovate that building. That is 
a lot of money! But, frankly, I don't know what it takes to build a 
building in New York, and neither do most folks. But there are some 
people who do and we'll look to their opinions later.
  It is a 30-story building. We own the real estate. It was modern 
once, when it was built in 1953, and people thought it was avant garde 
at the time. I have never been impressed with it, but it is an imposing 
structure. The fact that we need to renovate that building may not be 
disputable. It probably does need it, although it was renovated pretty 
substantially in the 1970's. Equivalent in today's dollars, over $150 
million was spent on it.
  The current plan is for the United States to loan the money at a 5.5 
percent interest, a somewhat realistic interest rate, whereas the U.N. 
is holding out on accepting the offer. They probably would like a loan 
at no cost. The GAO reported that was Annan's initial desire.
  The United Nations, as we know, is notoriously wasteful in the 
spending of its money. I wish that it weren't so, but it is a plain 
fact. Their cost controls have never been good. The Oil-For-Food 
Program that has been discussed so much lately is the biggest 
boondoggle--fraud, really--in the history of the world. This U.N. 
program is out of control. Waste of money under any circumstances is 
not acceptable.
  The United States, of course, pays about 20 percent of U.N. dues. We 
are the largest dues-paying member of the United Nations. I believe we 
pay a total of 22 percent of those dues. But regardless of that, UN 
dues are funds that have been sent to the United Nations by nations all 
over the world, and that money ought to be spent for good things with 
good purposes, purposes consistent with the ideals and principles on 
which the United Nations was founded--feeding the poor, improved 
medical care around the world, aid for research and treatment, river 
blindness, and peacekeeping missions.
  We don't have enough money to handle all the missions we need to do 
in the world, and the U.N. ought to do more. They do economic 
development, infrastructure improvements, and democracy building, but 
there is never enough money to do all of those things we should. 
Surely, with all the potential beneficial projects in the world, there 
is no room to waste money on a project, much less a project that would 
build offices for bureaucrats.
  Let me share this story with you, which is pretty shocking to me. The 
$1.2 billion loan the United Nations wants is to renovate a building. 
Some member of the United Nations, a delegate, apparently, from Europe, 
had read in the newspaper in New York that Mr. Donald Trump, the 
premier real estate developer in New York, the largest in New York by 
far, who has his own television show now--had just completed the Trump 
World Tower--not a 30-story building like the United Nations, but a 90-
story building, for a

[[Page S3258]]

mere $350 million, less than one-third of that cost. So the European 
United Nations delegate was curious about the $1.2 billion they were 
spending on the United Nations.
  He knew he didn't know what the real estate costs are in New York. 
So, he called Mr. Trump and they discussed it. Mr. Trump told him that 
building he built for $350 million was the top of the line. It has the 
highest quality of anything you would need in it.
  They discussed the matter, and an arrangement was made for Mr. Trump 
to meet Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, to discuss the concerns. The 
European delegate was somewhat taken back at Trump's reaction because 
he just didn't know how much it would cost. He had originally thought 
Mr. Trump's figures that were printed in the paper were in error.
  So according to Mr. Trump, who I talked to personally this morning, 
they go meet with Mr. Annan, who had asked some staff member to be 
there, and Mr. Trump is very outraged about this staffer. When the 
European asked how these numbers could happen, Mr. Trump said the only 
way would be because of incompetence, or fraud. That is how strongly he 
felt about this price tag because he pointed out to me that renovation 
costs much less than building an entirely new building. So he has a 
meeting with Mr. Annan, and they have some discussion. And Mr. Trump 
says these figures can't be acceptable.
  He told me in my conversation this morning, he said: You can quote 
me. You can say what I am saying. It has already been reported in the 
newspapers. He said they don't know. The person who had been working on 
this project for 4 years couldn't answer basic questions about what was 
involved in renovating a major building. He was not capable nor 
competent to do the job.
  He was further concerned. He went and worked on it, and talked about 
it, and eventually made an offer. He said he would manage the 
refurbishment, the renovation, of the United Nations Building, and he 
would not charge personally for his fee in managing it. He would bring 
it in at $500 billion, less than half of what they were expecting to 
spend, and it would be better.
  He told me: I know something about refurbishment and renovations. I 
do a lot of that, also. I know how to do that. Yet he never received a 
response from the United Nations, which raised very serious concerns in 
his mind about what was going on there.
  Let me further note some comments in the New York Sun article of 
February 4 of this year dealing with this subject. It starts off 
quoting Mr. Trump in this fashion:

       ``The United Nations is a mess, and they're spending 
     hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily on this 
     project.'' And several other Manhattan real estate experts 
     agreed, saying that the space should cost a fraction of what 
     is being projected on a square foot basis.

  In addition to this, by the way, after refurbishing their existing 
building, there are plans to construct a 35-story, 900,000-square-foot 
swing space over Robert Moses Park, plus a 100,000-square-foot 
esplanade park, which the United Nations Development Corporation says 
will be built into the East River. That has an additional price tag of 
$650 million. But that is a separate issue because they are having some 
additional problems with that, I understand, at this point.

       An executive managing director at the commercial real-
     estate firm Julien J. Studley Inc., Woody Heller, said a 
     thorough renovation of an office building would probably cost 
     between $85 and $160 per square foot.

  I am still reading from that newspaper article.

       Also from there, an executive vice president at Newmark, 
     Scott Panzer, said renovation prices could range between $120 
     and $200 per square foot.

   From the article:

       Mr. Panzer, who works with many corporations to redevelop 
     their buildings for future efficiency and energy cost 
     savings, put a price of $70 to $100 per square foot on 
     infrastructure upgrades. Those would include heating; 
     ventilation; air conditioning; replacing the central plant; 
     fenestration (specifically, switching from single-pane to 
     thermal-pane windows); upgrading elevator switch gears, 
     mechanicals, and vertical transportation; improving air 
     quality, and making security upgrades. On top of that amount, 
     another $50 to $100 per square foot would take care of the 
     inside office improvements.

  Fifty dollars is a lot of money to renovate a room. Remember, this is 
renovation, not building. You can probably build a building in Alabama 
for $100 a square foot.

       The chairman of the global brokerage at commercial real-
     estate firm CB Richard Ellis, Stephen Siegel, said high-end 
     commercial renovation usually runs from $50 to $100 per 
     square foot. For a renovation that does not include new 
     furniture . . . [and this plan does not] but does provide for 
     improved heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 
     equipment, as well as work on the building exterior, the cost 
     would be closer to the $100 end of the range, Mr. Siegel 
     said. Even accounting generously for upgrades that might be 
     peculiar to the U.N., Mr. Siegel added he would set $250 per 
     square foot as the absolute maximum.

  Some in the industry have estimated, however, that the dimensions of 
the U.N. headquarters building and total square footage in need of 
refurbishment is probably actually less than 1.1 million square feet 
,less than what they are saying, because it has been suggested that 
they were counting the parking deck in the renovation and other parts 
of the building that are not occupied. If you take out the parking deck 
and these other areas, you get a different figure than the 2.5 million 
they give you.
  Using the U.N. figures, the capital master plan yields a square foot 
cost of $452.71 for the renovation per square foot. That is 
breathtaking and completely out of common sense. It is almost twice 
what Mr. Siegel said would be the absolute maximum.
  But that is not all. If you go back and take out the parking deck and 
some of these other areas of the building that would not normally be 
considered when you think of the square foot of renovation, let me tell 
you what the figure comes to, and hold on to your hat: $1,100 per 
square foot. According to Mr. Trump, this is three, four, maybe five 
times the cost of this renovation, making this the most expensive 
renovation in history. Mr. Siegel said the $1.2 billion cost estimate 
was ``outrageous.'' This is a professional real estate man in New York 
City. He said the cost of renovation would be nearly as much as the 
price of putting up a new building, including the cost of land, and he 
would set the cost of the land at $500 per square foot, but that is 
already paid for in this case.
  This is a big deal. A GAO report has looked at it. It assumes that 
our Government will pay 22 percent of the $1.2 billion loan principal. 
In other words, because we pay about that much percentage in our dues 
to the U.N., we will pay 22 percent of the $1.2 billion paying the 
principal back. The American taxpayers have a real interest in this.
  There are some negotiations now. The administration is saying, you 
ought to pay some interest. We want to be paid 5.5 percent. We will 
loan you the money, but we want to be paid 5.5 interest. The U.N. is 
holding out to accept our loan, perhaps Mr. Annan is holding out for a 
loan with zero-interest.
  We would like the U.N. to have good quarters. We would like them to 
renovate if that is the right thing to do. However, the United Nations 
has a responsibility not only to the United States, the largest 
contributor, but to every single country that contributes to that 
organization. Many of them are not wealthy. Many of them contribute 
significantly to the U.N. They have a responsibility to use that money 
wisely.

  I am very concerned in light of the oil-for-food scandal and other 
problems we have seen at the U.N. that we are heading down the road to 
an incredibly wasteful adventure in New York. The U.S. Government ought 
to do everything it can not only to protect our own treasury, but to 
protect the U.N. Secretary, to make sure this boondoggle does not go 
forward.
  At some point legislation by this Congress needs to be passed to 
allow, encourage, or require our leadership to demand strict accounting 
of what is being spent, to demand that any construction or renovation 
be done in a cost-effective way, to make sure there is no fraud, there 
is no corruption, no kickbacks, and no abuses whatsoever in building 
this building, and that every dollar of the U.N. is spent wisely and 
carefully.
  Those are my concerns. I thank the New York Sun for making a point in 
this article. I thank Mr. Trump for his willingness to speak publicly. 
He is pretty frank about it. Obviously, he is very concerned. He felt 
this was not being handled in a wise way. He saw a

[[Page S3259]]

disaster on the horizon, and he was willing to speak out about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Amendments Nos. 319, 320, 321, and 322, en bloc

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
offer four amendments en bloc, and I send those four amendments to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the 
amendments en bloc?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes amendments 
     numbered 319 through 322, en bloc.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 319

(Purpose: To encourage multilateral cooperation and authorize a program 
  of assistance to facilitate a peaceful transition in Cuba, and for 
                            other purposes)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                TITLE XXIX--PEACEFUL TRANSITION IN CUBA

     SEC. 2901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Cuba Transition Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2902. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Cuban people are seeking change in their country, 
     including through the Varela Project, independent journalist 
     activity, and other civil society initiatives.
       (2) Civil society groups and independent, self-employed 
     Cuban citizens will be essential to the consolidation of a 
     genuine and effective transition to democracy from an 
     authoritarian, communist government in Cuba, and therefore 
     merit increased international assistance.
       (3) The people of the United States support a policy of 
     proactively helping the Cuban people to establish a 
     democratic system of government, including supporting Cuban 
     citizen efforts to prepare for transition to a better and 
     more prosperous future.
       (4) The Inter-American Democratic Charter adopted by the 
     General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) 
     provides both guidance and mechanisms for response by OAS 
     members to the governmental transition in Cuba and that 
     country's eventual reintegration into the inter-American 
     system.
       (5) United States Government support of pro-democracy 
     elements in Cuba and planning for the transition in Cuba is 
     essential for the identification of resources and mechanisms 
     that can be made available immediately in response to 
     profound political and economic changes on the island.
       (6) Consultations with democratic development institutions 
     and international development agencies regarding Cuba are a 
     critical element in the preparation of an effective 
     multilateral response to the transition in Cuba.

     SEC. 2903. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are as follows:
       (1) To support multilateral efforts by the countries of the 
     Western Hemisphere in planning for a transition of the 
     government in Cuba and the return of that country to the 
     Western Hemisphere community of democracies.
       (2) To encourage the development of an international group 
     to coordinate multilateral planning to a transition of the 
     government in Cuba.
       (3) To authorize funding for programs to assist the Cuban 
     people and independent nongovernmental organizations in Cuba 
     in preparing the groundwork for a peaceful transition of 
     government in Cuba.
       (4) To provide the President with funding to implement 
     assistance programs essential to the development of a 
     democratic government in Cuba.

     SEC. 2904. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Democratically elected government in cuba.--The term 
     ``democratically elected government in Cuba'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and 
     Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 
     6023).
       (2) Transition government in cuba.--The term ``transition 
     government in Cuba'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 4 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
     (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6023).

     SEC. 2905. DESIGNATION OF COORDINATOR FOR CUBA TRANSITION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall designate, 
     within the Department of State, a coordinator who shall be 
     responsible for--
       (1) designing an overall strategy to coordinate 
     preparations for, and a response to, a transition in Cuba;
       (2) coordinating assistance provided to the Cuban people in 
     preparation for a transition in Cuba;
       (3) coordinating strategic support for the consolidation of 
     a political and economic transition in Cuba;
       (4) ensuring program and policy coordination among agencies 
     of the United States Government in carrying out the policies 
     set forth in this title; and
       (5) pursuing coordination with other countries and 
     international organizations, including international 
     financial institutions, with respect to assisting a 
     transition in Cuba.
       (b) Rank and Status of the Transition Coordinator.--The 
     coordinator designated in subsection (a) shall have the rank 
     and status of ambassador.

     SEC. 2906. MULTILATERAL INITIATIVES RELATED TO CUBA.

       The Secretary of State is authorized to designate up to 
     $5,000,000 of total amounts made available for contributions 
     to international organizations to be provided to the 
     Organization of American States for--
       (1) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights activities 
     relating to the situation of human rights in Cuba; and
       (2) the funding of an OAS emergency fund for the deployment 
     of human rights observers, election support, and election 
     observation in Cuba as described in section 109(b) of the 
     Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 
     1996 (22 U.S.C. 6039(b)(1)).

     SEC. 2907. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Sense of Congress Regarding Consultation With Western 
     Hemisphere.--It is the sense of Congress that the President 
     should begin consultation, as appropriate, with governments 
     of other Western Hemisphere countries regarding a transition 
     in Cuba.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Other Consultations.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that the President should begin 
     consultations with appropriate international partners and 
     governments regarding a multilateral diplomatic and financial 
     support program for response to a transition in Cuba.

     SEC. 2908. ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE IN 
                   PREPARATION FOR A TRANSITION IN CUBA.

       (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law other than section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1) and comparable notification 
     requirements contained in any Act making appropriations for 
     foreign operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     the President is authorized to furnish an amount not to 
     exceed $15,000,000 in assistance and provide other support 
     for individuals and independent nongovernmental organizations 
     to support democracy-building efforts for Cuba, including 
     assistance for--
       (1) political prisoners and members of their families;
       (2) persons persecuted or harassed for dissident 
     activities;
       (3) independent libraries;
       (4) independent workers' rights activists;
       (5) independent agricultural cooperatives;
       (6) independent associations of self-employed Cubans;
       (7) independent journalists;
       (8) independent youth organizations;
       (9) independent environmental groups;
       (10) independent economists, medical doctors, and other 
     professionals;
       (11) establishing and maintaining an information and 
     resources center to be in the United States interests section 
     in Havana, Cuba;
       (12) prodemocracy programs of the National Endowment for 
     Democracy related to Cuba;
       (13) nongovernmental programs to facilitate access to the 
     Internet, subject to section 102(g) of the Cuban Liberty and 
     Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 
     6032(g));
       (14) nongovernmental charitable programs that provide 
     nutrition and basic medical care to persons most at risk, 
     including children and elderly persons; and
       (15) nongovernmental charitable programs to reintegrate 
     into civilian life persons who have abandoned, resigned, or 
     been expelled from the Cuban armed forces for ideological 
     reasons.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Independent nongovernmental organization.--The term 
     ``independent nongovernmental organization'' means an 
     organization that the Secretary of State determines, not less 
     than 15 days before any obligation of funds to the 
     organization, is a charitable or nonprofit nongovernmental 
     organization that is not an agency or instrumentality of the 
     Cuban Government.
       (2) Eligible cuban recipients.--The term ``eligible Cuban 
     recipients'' is limited to any Cuban national in Cuba, 
     including political prisoners and their families, who are not 
     officials of the Cuban Government or of the ruling political 
     party in Cuba, as defined in section 4(10) of the Cuban 
     Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 
     U.S.C. 6023(10)).

     SEC. 2909. SUPPORT FOR A TRANSITION GOVERNMENT IN CUBA.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to funds 
     otherwise available for such purposes, there are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to the 
     President to establish a fund to provide assistance to a 
     transition government in Cuba as defined in section 4(14) of 
     the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 
     1996 (22 U.S.C. 6023(14)).

[[Page S3260]]

       (b) Designation of Fund.--The fund authorized in subsection 
     (a) shall be known as the ``Fund for a Free Cuba''.
       (c) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.


                           amendment no. 320

  (Purpose: To amend chapter 118 of title 18, United States Code, to 
         prohibit foreign war crimes prosecutions of Americans)

       At the end of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 405. PROHIBITION OF WAR CRIMES PROSECUTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 118 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2442. International criminal court

       ``(a) Offense.--Except as provided in subsection (b), it 
     shall be unlawful for any person, acting under the authority 
     of the International Criminal Court, another international 
     organization, or a foreign government, to knowingly indict, 
     apprehend, detain, prosecute, convict, or participate in the 
     imposition or carrying out of any sentence or other penalty 
     on, any American in connection with any proceeding by or 
     before the International Criminal Court, another 
     international organization, or a foreign government in which 
     that American is accused of a war crime.
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in 
     connection with a criminal proceeding instituted by the 
     government of a foreign country within the courts of such 
     country with respect to a war crime allegedly committed--
       ``(1) on territory subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of 
     such government; or
       ``(2) against persons who were nationals of such country at 
     the time that the war crime is alleged to have been 
     committed.
       ``(c) Criminal Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person who violates subsection (a) 
     shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, imprisoned as 
     provided in paragraph (2), or both.
       ``(2) Prison sentence.--The maximum term of imprisonment 
     for an offense under this section is the greater of--
       ``(A) 5 years; or
       ``(B) the maximum term that could be imposed on the 
     American in the criminal proceeding described in subsection 
     (a) with respect to which the violation took place.
       ``(d) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is 
     extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offense under this 
     section.
       ``(e) Civil Remedy.--Any person who is aggrieved by a 
     violation under subsection (a) may, in a civil action, obtain 
     appropriate relief, including--
       ``(1) punitive damages; and
       ``(2) a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `American' means any citizen or national of 
     the United States, or any other person employed by or working 
     under the direction of the United States Government;
       ``(2) the term `indict' includes--
       ``(A) the formal submission of an order or request for the 
     prosecution or arrest of a person; and
       ``(B) the issuance of a warrant or other order for the 
     arrest of a person,

     by an official of the International Criminal Court, another 
     international organization, or a foreign government;
       ``(3) the term `International Criminal Court' means the 
     court established by the Rome Statute of the International 
     Criminal Court adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic 
     Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of and 
     International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998; and
       ``(4) the term `war crime' means--
       ``(A) any offense now cognizable before the International 
     Criminal Court; and
       ``(B) any offense hereafter cognizable before the 
     International Criminal Court, effective on the date such 
     offense becomes cognizable before such court.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in chapter 
     118 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``Sec. 2442. International criminal court.''.


                           amendment no. 321

 (Purpose: To ensure the independence of the Inspector General of the 
                            United Nations)

       On page 59, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 405. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       (a) Withholding of Portion of Certain Assessed 
     Contributions.--Twenty percent of the funds made available in 
     each fiscal year under section 102(a) for the assessed 
     contribution of the United States to the United Nations shall 
     be withheld from obligation and expenditure until a 
     certification is made under subsection (b).
       (b) Certification.--A certification under this subsection 
     is a certification by the Secretary in the fiscal year 
     concerned that the following conditions are satisfied:
       (1) Actions by the united nations.--
       (A) The United Nations has met the requirements of 
     paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 401(b) of the Foreign 
     Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 
     (Public Law 103-236; 108 Stat. 446).
       (B) The Office of Internal Oversight Services has fulfilled 
     the directive in General Assembly Resolution 48/218B to make 
     all of its reports available to the General Assembly, with 
     modifications to those reports that would violate 
     confidentiality or the due process rights of individuals 
     involved in any investigation.
       (C) The Office of Internal Oversight Services has an 
     independent budget that does not require the approval of the 
     United Nations Budget Office.
       (2) Actions by the oios.--The Office of Internal Oversight 
     Service has authority to audit, inspect, or investigate each 
     program, project, or activity funded by the United Nations, 
     and each executive board created under the United Nations has 
     been notified in writing of that authority.


                           amendment no. 322

  (Purpose: To ensure the United Nations maintains a no growth budget)

       On page 11, line 15, striking ``There'' and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There
       On page 11, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       (2) No growth budget.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to the authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1), 
     $80,000,000 shall be withheld for each of the calendar years 
     2006 and 2007 unless the Secretary submits a certification to 
     the appropriate congressional committees for each such 
     calendar year that states that the United Nations has taken 
     no action during the preceding calendar year to increase 
     funding for any United Nations program without identifying an 
     offsetting decrease elsewhere in the United Nations budget 
     during that calendar year and that for such calendar years 
     the United Nations will not exceed the spending limits of the 
     initial 2004-2005 United Nations biennium budget adopted in 
     December, 2003.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor.


               Amendments Nos. 290, 291, and 317, en bloc

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendments be set aside in order to offer three amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I call up amendments numbered 290, 291, and 317.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 290

(Purpose: To require aliens to affirm certain oaths prior to admission 
                         to the United States)

       On page 110, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 812. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Requirement for Oath Prior To Obtaining Visa.--Section 
     222 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Every alien applying for a nonimmigrant visa shall, 
     prior to obtaining such visa, swear or affirm an oath stating 
     that--
       ``(1) the alien shall adhere to the laws and to the 
     Constitution of the United States;
       ``(2) the alien will not attempt to develop information for 
     the purpose of threatening the national security of the 
     United States or to bring harm to any citizen of the United 
     States;
       ``(3) the alien is not associated with a terrorist 
     organization;
       ``(4) the alien has not and will not receive any funds or 
     other support to visit the United States from a terrorist 
     organization;
       ``(5) all documents submitted to support the alien's 
     application are valid and contain truthful information;
       ``(6) the alien will inform the appropriate authorities if 
     the alien is approached or contacted by a member of a 
     terrorist organization; and
       ``(7) the alien understands that the alien's visa shall be 
     revoked and the alien shall be removed from the United States 
     if the alien is found--
       ``(A) to have acted in a manner that is inconsistent with 
     this oath; or
       ``(B) provided fraudulent information in order to obtain a 
     visa.''.
       (b) Requirement for Oath Prior to Admission.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security or an 
     individual designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall require an alien seeking admission to the United States 
     pursuant to a nonimmigrant visa to swear or affirm an oath 
     reaffirming all the information provided by the alien for the 
     purpose of obtaining the nonimmigrant visa.
       (2) Administration of Oath.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall administer the oath required by paragraph (1) 
     to an alien in the United States prior to the admission of 
     such alien.
       (3) False statements.--An alien who knowingly and willfully 
     makes a false statement in swearing or affirming the oath 
     required by paragraph (1) shall be subject to the penalties 
     imposed for making a false statement under section 1001 of 
     title 18, United States Code.
       (4) Admission defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``admission'' shall have the meaning given that term in 
     section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)).


                           amendment no. 291

   (Purpose: To strike the authority to provide living quarters and 
 allowances to the United States Representative to the United Nations)

       Strike section 318.

[[Page S3261]]

                           amendment no. 317

     (Purpose: To provide for accountability in the United Nations 
                    Headquarters renovation project)

     SEC. __. UN HEADQUARTERS RENOVATION.

       (a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no loan in excess of $600,000,000 may be made available 
     by the United States for renovation of the United Nations 
     headquarters building, located in New York, New York.
       ``(b) Reporting Requirement.--Any such loan shall be 
     contingent upon the satisfactory submission, by the 
     Secretary-General of the United Nations, of a report to 
     Congress containing a detailed analysis of the United Nations 
     headquarters renovation.

  Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will send a copy of an amendment to the 
desk, but I am not going to offer the amendment right now. I would like 
to discuss what I would like to do at some point on a matter of 
significance. I will send the amendment up to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, I know we are about to maybe 
have a more important matter come to the floor. I am going to keep my 
eye on the chairman of the committee so he can let me know when I 
should wrap up these comments.
  The amendment that at some point I would like to offer, either on 
this bill or another piece of legislation, deals with what I believe is 
an extremely important issue about enhancing U.S. diplomatic and 
strategic influence in the Western Hemisphere.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been a member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee on the subcommittee dealing with Latin America for 
the 24 years I have been in the Senate, either as the ranking member or 
as the chairman of the subcommittee.
  I am deeply concerned, as I know many of my colleagues are, that 
while our attention is focused on other parts of the world, for obvious 
reasons, there is a serious condition developing in Latin America that 
deserves our attention.
  The amendment I would be offering is quite simple. It would permit 
nations in this hemisphere to receive international military and 
educational training, so-called IMET training, assistance from the 
United States.
  My colleagues might say: Well, don't we do that? Haven't we been 
doing that for years? The answer is yes. But it has been stopped in 11 
countries in Latin America, along with economic support funds. The 
reason is because these nations have not signed on to the so-called 
article 98 agreement with the United States. The article 98 agreement 
has to do with the American Service Members Protection Act. That is 
because the administration is vehemently opposed to the International 
Criminal Court, and any nation that does not protect American 
servicemen from potentially being prosecuted under that act would have 
the international military and educational training funds, along with 
economic support funds, cut off entirely.
  Now, again, I am not arguing at all about whether we ought to have 
the American Service Members Protection Act. My colleagues have voted 
for that. That is the law of the land. My concern is linking that 
legislation with the international military and educational training 
funds and economic assistance funds.
  Let me tell you what has happened as a result of linking these up. We 
used to have as many as 800 junior officers or senior officers from 
Latin America come to the United States each year to go to our schools, 
to learn about how we would conduct our military operations, to receive 
the critical training that would make them more in tune with our 
ideals, our values, as military officers.
  As a result of this linkage we have now adopted, we now have zero 
military personnel coming from these countries that I have already 
mentioned, the 11 countries affected; the countries being Bolivia, 
Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Uruguay, 
Barbados, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad, and Tobago.

  To give you some idea, we used to have from Peru 172 young officers 
come to the United States. Because of the linkage, we now have zero. 
Uruguay sent 202. We now have zero. Venezuela, 73; Ecuador, 85--to give 
you some idea in the last year or so, and on down the list.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list of the number of people coming 
from these countries on a roughly annual basis be printed in the 
Record, if I may.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, an amendment just passed without notice 
to any of us that involves a dispute about a helicopter between New 
York and Connecticut. I did not know of that amendment. Neither did 
Senator Clinton. Neither did anybody else. So I have to object to this 
until I see what it is. It was offered by my good friend from 
Connecticut. I will serve notice, I will hold up this bill and sit here 
until we deal with this in a fair way. This was a sneak attack. We knew 
nothing about it. It was not debated. And it is not the right way to do 
business around here.
  Mr. DODD. Well, Mr. President----
  Mr. SCHUMER. So I object to whatever the unanimous consent request 
was until I see what it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my point on this amendment is that with the 
significant deterioration in the connections between our country and 
these nations that have received in the past the international military 
and educational training funds and the economic support funds, that we 
find ourselves in a very precarious position with these countries and 
the junior officers and senior officers who have come here for their 
training. So the amendment, in effect, would delink these issues. It 
does not overturn the American Service Members Protection Act; it just 
delinks it.
  Who is advocating this? SOUTHCOM, which is the military structure and 
organization that has the responsibility for dealing with Latin 
America, is a strong advocate of delinking these issues. In fact, in 
today's Washington Times, the headline is ``U.S. 'hands tied' in South 
America.'' I will quote from the article:

       As the Bush administration tries to craft a new foreign 
     policy toward an increasingly belligerent Venezuela, Pentagon 
     and military officials say they cannot blunt that nation's 
     regional influence unless a law meant to protect U.S. 
     personnel from prosecution in the International Criminal 
     Court is changed.

  The article goes on:

       That law, the American Service Members Protection Act, 
     prohibits U.S. security assistance funds and most military 
     cooperation unless a country rejects the U.N.-backed ICC or 
     signs a bilateral immunity agreement with the United States. 
     . . .
       Of the 22 nations in the world that are on the black list 
     [so-called]--they have ratified the ICC agreement and have 
     refused to grant the United States bilateral immunity--11 of 
     them are in Latin America.

  I have listed them already.
  So again, I will not go on at great length. I know there is a 
possibility here of reaching an agreement on a matter that has held up 
this bill. This amendment would delink these issues. I do not need to 
emphasize the point. My colleagues should be aware of this.
  There was a growing influence from the People's Republic of China in 
Latin America, offering to spend billions of dollars in the region and 
I presume, willing as well, to train military personnel. We do not want 
to lose the tremendous opportunity we have had over the years to 
maintain these relationships.
  Again, I am not here to argue today the wisdom or lack of wisdom of 
the American Service Members Protection Act. The only case I want to 
make to my colleagues is, Should we be linking these IMET funds--that 
is, the international military and educational training funds--and 
economic support funds, which are critically important in Latin 
America, with that legislation? I do not think we should. SOUTHCOM, our 
military leaders, do

[[Page S3262]]

not think we should. Roger Noriega, with whom I do not always agree on 
Latin American issues, thinks it is wrong to link the economic support 
fund issues as well. So people who have strong credentials, if you 
will, in opposing the International Criminal Court believe that linking 
these issues in this region is not serving the interests of the United 
States well at all.
  At an appropriate time, in consultation with the chairman of the 
committee and others, I would like to pursue this matter to see whether 
my colleagues might agree that we might delink these issues. With that, 
again, knowing there are other matters that can be dealt with, I won't 
belabor the point.
  I have some further comments I will make, but I will wait for the 
appropriate time to do that so that my full statement can be read by 
those who may be interested in this particular proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me respond briefly to the distinguished 
Senator from New York. The amendment that was offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, as I indicated before he was on 
the floor, we were prepared to accept. We presumed there was not 
Democratic Party opposition to that; there were not members of the 
committee on the floor. Senator Dodd is a member of the committee, and, 
therefore, we acted in good faith, as we have to. We are trying very 
hard to proceed amendment by amendment, depending upon Senators to be 
on the floor, to be represented by their party officials and by their 
staffs. So I am hopeful the distinguished Senator from New York and the 
Senator from Connecticut may be able to agree on a course of action, 
but from our standpoint, we believe the amendment was offered and 
accepted legitimately and in due course.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. LUGAR. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue calling the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________