Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lautenberg in introducing the Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention Act. I cosponsored the Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention Act because I believe it is commonsense legislation which will strengthen our homeland security.

According to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, anyone seeking to purchase or obtain a permit to possess, acquire, or carry firearms must undergo a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. This process requires the applicant to provide a variety of personal information including name, date of birth, current residence, and country of citizenship which is then compared with data in the NICS system to determine whether the person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing firearms. Disqualifying criteria include felony convictions and fugitive or illegal alien status. If no disqualifying information is found within 3 business days, the transaction is allowed to continue.

As part of the background check, applicants are also checked against known terrorist watch lists. However, under current law, membership in a known terrorist organization does not automatically disqualify an applicant from receiving or possessing a firearm. In cases where a positive match is made, Federal authorities search for other disqualifying information. If no disqualifying information can be found within 3 business days, the transaction is permitted to continue. In addition, all records pertaining to a positive match of an applicant to a terrorist watch list must, under current law, be destroyed within 24 hours if no disqualifying information is found.

A report released by the General Accountability Office on March 8, 2005, found that from February 3, 2004, through June 30, 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals designated as known or suspected terrorists by the Federal Government. In 35 cases, the transactions were authorized to proceed because Federal authorities were unable to find any disqualifying information.

Federal Bureau of Investigation counterterrorism officials stated ``receiving all available personal identifying information and other details from terrorism-related NICS transactions could be useful in conducting investigations.'' Currently, counterterrorism officials do not have access to the majority of these records because they are destroyed within 24 hours of the transaction in the absence of disqualifying information.

The Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention Act addresses this issue by requiring that in cases where an NICS background check turns up a valid match to a terrorist watch list, all records pertaining to the transaction be retained for 10 years. In addition, the bill requires that all NICS information be shared with appropriate Federal and State counterterrorism officials anytime an individual on a terrorist watch list attempts to buy a firearm. Learning about a suspected terrorist's purchase of a firearm could potentially be critical to counterterrorism investigators working to prevent a terrorist attack.

This bill takes a commonsense approach to assisting Federal authorities in monitoring and apprehending suspected terrorists without compromising the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens. I am hopeful that the Congress will take up and pass this legislation to give Federal and State counterterrorism officials the information they need to help keep our families and communities safe.

Mr. President, from April 30 through May 2, 2005, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution,'' the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

I am proud to report that a class from East Grand Rapids High School from Grand Rapids will represent the State of Michigan in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's capital and compete at the national level.

While in Washington, the students will participate in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate, adopt, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. It is important to note that the Educational Testing Service, ETS, characterizes the We the People program as a ``great instructional success.'' Independent studies by ETS have revealed that We the People students ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.''

I congratulate East Grand Rapids students John Abraham, Ted Bosch, Ross Brenneman, Katherine Fasse, Bill Frayer, Kyle Fuller, Joe Gallmeyer, Will Gallmeyer, Katherine Harger, Jimmy Hogan, Christina Kim, Peter Meyer, Lenard Robert, Sarah Stevens, Tully Svekric, Alyssa Titche, Gab Tourek, Dimitri Wohns and their teacher, Pierre A. Sirois.

I wish these students the best of luck at the We the People national finals and applaud their outstanding achievement.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stabenow and myself, I rise to bring tribute to Ann Arbor, MI, resident Bill Martin. On May 2 of this year, the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County will confer their Humanitarian Award on Bill Martin as an outstanding member of the community.

Throughout his life, Bill Marin has dedicated himself, publicly and privately, to projects that involve, concern, and benefit the community. When the Ann Arbor public schools needed extra funds for school projects, Bill implemented the very successful 3-on-3 Superball basketball tournament. He rallied a group of craftsmen to rebuild State ranger cabins on Isle Royale and joined in the effort. And he answered the calls of both the University of Michigan Athletic Department and the United States Olympic Committee when they were engulfed in turmoil and scandal.

Bill Martin has been director of Intercollegiate Athletics at the University of Michigan since 2000. Martin has also served as the president of the United States Olympic Committee. An avid sailor, Bill Martin has also served as president of the United States Sailing Foundation, as well as the U.S. Sailing Association.

In 1968, Bill Martin founded First Martin Corporation, a diversified real estate construction, development and management firm. He is also the founder and chairman of the board of Bank of Ann Arbor.

Bill Martin's devotion to his community ranges beyond business and athletics. He has served as president of the Washtenaw Land Conservancy, and has been a board member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools Foundation and the Washtenaw Technical Middle College. He has been a member of the advisory board of U-M's Center for the Education of Women and served on the Fales Committee of the U.S. Naval Academy. He is currently on the board of directors of New York 2012, working to bring the Olympic Games to New York City.

He has been awarded numerous awards including the U.S. Olympic Committee Award for outstanding service to the U.S. Olympic Committee and America's athletes, the Nathanial G. Herreshoff Trophy for outstanding contribution to the sport of sailing, the Bob Ufer Distinguished M Club Award, and ``Ann Arbor News' Citizen of the Year for his service and contributions to the community.

Martin earned a bachelor of arts degree from Wittenberg University, a graduate degree in economics from the University of Stockholm, and a MBA from the University of Michigan.

Bill and his wife Sally have lived in Ann Arbor since 1967 when they met as students. They have two grown sons, Seth and Michael.

Senator Stabenow and I are delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to Bill Martin for all of his contributions to his community and congratulate him on his upcoming honor from the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, there has been a little confusion because there has been different versions of this bill circulating. I want everybody to know the version of the bill we are working on, which the unanimous consent relates to, is a brandnew bill as of a few moments ago which contains the modifications that we have worked out.

Whoever has time, could they just yield 1 minute to me?

Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank people who have worked out the changes in this bill, which make it a better bill. From my perspective, it is still a mistake, and I intend to vote no if there is a rollcall vote.

A number of people have asked me whether I now favor this bill with the changes. My answer is no. I think it is a better bill with the changes. It is a bill which avoids some damaging precedents.

We can explain the changes. The most important one is explicitly this does not create a precedent. Secondly, it is not a 12-month period the parents can proceed in. It is a 30-day period that they have. So we do not have a situation where they wait 12 months prior to initiating the case.

The court has discretion to issue a stay. It is not mandatory. It is not a bill for the relief of Theresa Marie Schiavo. It is a bill which gives the parents the opportunity, within a short period of time, to go to court, so it is technically for their relief, not for her relief.

So I wanted to make it clear to the people in the Senate who asked, ``Does this mean you now favor this?'' If there is a rollcall, I intend to vote no. I think it is a mistake. If it is a voice vote, I intend to vote no, for whatever relevance that has, except I do not want to mislead anybody, by proposing these things, that now suddenly I think this is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I want to make it clear that although I believe it is a mistake for Congress to be moving into this area with this haste and speed, in the most difficult decisionmaking a family could ever face--I intend to vote no--the language in section 1 also makes it clear that a Federal court would have to find a violation of a constitutional right or a right under U.S. law in order to provide an order that she be maintained on life support.

It is very clear in here that there has to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution or Federal law for a Federal court to provide the continuation of life support.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 243

Mr. President, I send modified amendment numbered 288 to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this amendment is on behalf of Senator DeWine, myself, Senator Lieberman, and others. We have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs in this country in the last 4 years. We have a very modest program called the Advanced Technology Program, which, according to the Department of Commerce, in their publication, which I would be happy to share with those who can come to take a look at it, according to the Department of Commerce, this program has had a result eight times more in technologies developed than the amount of money we have put into the program. It is an eight-time return--multiple--in advanced technologies which is achieved when the Department of Commerce partners with industry.

This is now a sense of the Senate.

Mr. President, for the second year in a row, the President proposes to completely eliminate the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. Last year, Congress wisely chose to

fund the ATP program at $142.3 million. The bottom line is that the ATP promotes the development of new, innovative products that are made and developed in the United States, helping American companies compete against their foreign competitors and contribute to the growth of the U.S. economy.

I hope Congress will continue to fund this important program in fiscal year 2006. Doing so will help strengthen the technological and economic leadership of America's high technology manufacturing companies that is necessary for them to remain competitive in today's global marketplace. It will also help ensure that the most cutting-edge companies can continue to innovate, expand and create jobs.

My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate calling on the Senate Committee on Appropriations to make every effort to restore funding for the Advanced Technology Program in fiscal year 2006.

Continued ATP funding would encourage public-private cooperation and investment in economically important technology R&D. Through a cost- shared program, the ATP provides grants to support research and development of high-tech, cutting-edge technologies with commercial potential and societal benefits. The ATP focuses on improving the competitiveness of American companies and funds many research and development projects that have the potential to create broad-based U.S. economic benefits and that otherwise may not get developed or that would be developed too slowly to take advantage of market opportunities.

According to one study, the manufacturing sector, more than any other, helps to generate increased economic activity in other industries with every dollar of goods produced generating an additional $1.43 in economic activity in other industries or sectors.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, returns for the American people on the ATP, as measured from 41 of the 736 projects-- just 6 percent of the portfolio--have exceeded $17 billion in economic benefits, more than eight times the amount invested in ATP.

Manufacturers' investment in innovation account for almost two-thirds of all private-sector research and development. This investment in turn leads to advances in other manufacturing sectors and spillover into nonmanufacturing activities in the United States.

ATP involvement accelerates the development and commercialization of new technologies. Time to market was reduced by 1 year in 10 percent of projects, by 2 years in 22 percent of projects, and by 3 years in 26 percent of projects.

The ATP program supports small business. Over 65 percent of ATP projects have been led by small businesses. This is exceptional given that small businesses lead in the creation of job growth and new technology advancement in our country.

ATP has received applications from 50 States and made awards to high technology businesses in 40 States plus the District of Columbia.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO, the Industrial Research Institute, the Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America, and the American Chemical Society have expressed support for ATP.

Unfortunately, current funding levels do not meet the demand for ATP. Over 1,000 proposals submitted in 2002 alone yielded enough high quality projects to absorb the total funding available in both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2004 saw the second highest number of applications for funding in ATP history, 870, but funding was available for only 59 awards.

The ATP is one of the few Federal programs available to help American manufacturers remain competitive in the global economy. This high octane economic development engine should be supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. If we want NIST to continue making these important job-creating ATP awards, we have to fund it.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nationally we have lost nearly 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In the face of these losses and strong global economic competition, we should be doing all we can to promote programs that help create jobs and strengthen the technological innovation of American companies. Supporting the ATP program is one way to do this.

amendment no. 253

Mr. President, this budget, like the President's budget, reflects the wrong priorities. This budget short changes public services such as education and health care for all Americans in order to further cut taxes mainly for the wealthiest Americans. This budget resolution is starkly out of touch with the vast majority of working families in Michigan and across the United States. The American people deserve better.

To create the impression that the budget cuts the deficit in half over the next 5 years, it simply leaves out several major expenses. These omissions include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost of the personnel added to the Army and Marines and the cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax. Leaving these costs out of the budget paints an incomplete picture of the deepening Federal deficit and the damage being done to the Nation's fiscal outlook.

If the deficit continues to expand at its current rate, by 2015, each American's share of the debt will be at least $30,000. The bigger the deficit grows, the more likely it is that we will face rising long-term interest rates and slower economic growth. This will make it more expensive to buy a house, pay for college or pay off credit card debt. This is an unfair burden to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

The President's tax cuts are a major cause of our Nation's swing from a record budget surplus into an increasingly deep deficit ditch. Yet this resolution seeks $71 billion in additional tax breaks most of which are for the wealthiest Americans. The cornerstone of these proposed tax cuts is the extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. These tax cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest among us.

Largely as a result of its reckless tax cuts, this budget would actually increase, rather than decrease, the deficit. But this budget resolution, such as the President's budget, attempts to conceal the damage it is doing to the Nation's fiscal outlook by using 5-year projections instead of the customary

10-year numbers. Hidden just beyond the 5-year budget window is the exploding cost of the tax cut proposals and its growing effect on the deficit.

I am disappointed that the Senate did not adopt the Feingold-Chafee amendment to reinstate pay-as-you-go rules that would require both entitlement spending increases and tax cuts to be fully paid for or face a 60-vote point of order in the Senate. The pay-as-you-go rule, like the one which was successful in the 1990s, would have helped restrain the deficit without unduly harming critical public services.

I am pleased that the Senate rejected severe cuts to the Medicaid Program in a crucial vote earlier today. This is a victory for the 53 million children, pregnant women, elderly and disabled who rely on Medicaid to meet their health care needs. It is also a victory for the people that make our health care delivery system work.

Still the budget plan which is before the Senate today fails to address some of our Nation's most pressing problems, such as the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, cuts in education funding, and environmental protection.

I am also saddened that the Senate rejected an amendment to continue to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have a responsibility to promote a balanced energy plan that invests in America's future and protects our environment, not one that damages our protected lands. Rather than drilling in our pristine wilderness, the United States should be investing in alternative sources of power, renewable energy programs and fuel efficient automotive technology to improve fuel economy without harming our environment.

This budget slashes funding for vital programs for working families in order to extend massive and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that significantly lower the Nation's revenue and explode the deficit. These are the wrong priorities for America. I cannot support it.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Norm Coleman, Susan Collins and Jack Reed, in introducing the Central Contractor Registry Act of 2005. The purpose of this bipartisan bill is to strengthen the ability of the Federal Government to stop tax cheats from obtaining Federal contracts, and for those who have managed to obtain contracts, to use a portion of their contract payments to repay their tax debts.

Now, even more than when we introduced a similar bill in May 2004, it is clear that new legislation is essential to confront the problem of Federal contractor tax debt. Last year the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which Senator Coleman and I sit, raised this issue in a hearing based on a report issued by the Government Accountability Office, GAO. The report showed that over 27,000 contractors at the Department of Defense, DOD, owed $3 billion in unpaid taxes. Approximately 90 percent of these unpaid taxes were payroll taxes, money that should be going to help fund the social security and medicare expenditures that are climbing so rapidly. Too many contractors are continuing to duck payment of these payroll taxes, while at the same time holding out their hands for taxpayer dollars.

Beyond the loss in substantial government revenue, allowing tax cheats to bid on Federal contracts is a disservice to all citizens who meet their tax obligations. It is also a disservice to all of the honest companies that compete for the same government contracts, since companies that do not pay their taxes have lower costs and a competitive advantage over the companies that do.

Current law requires DOD and other government agencies to identify any government contractor with unpaid taxes, to withhold 15 percent or more of their contract payments, and to forward that money to the IRS to be applied to the contractor's tax debt. The official title of the DOD program to carry out this obligation is the Federal Payment Levy Program, sometimes referred to as the DOD tax levy program.

In order to identify tax delinquent contractors before they receive payment, DOD and other agencies participate in a computer matching program administered by the Treasury Department that cross-checks lists of upcoming contractor payments with IRS lists of delinquent taxpayers. If a match occurs, DOD--in the case of defense contractors--and the Treasury Department for all other government contractors is supposed to withhold money from the identified contractor's upcoming contract payments.

The problem is that the computer matching program has so far produced relatively few matches. In 2003, for example, DOD collected only about $680,000 of back taxes through its tax levy program instead of the $100 million that GAO estimates should have been collected. That means DOD collected less than one percent of the back taxes it should have.

One major impediment to the computer matching program has been that it depends upon a Federal agency's providing the correct taxpayer identification number or TIN for each of its contractors, when many contractors have either failed to submit a TIN or supplied an incorrect number. When a TIN is incorrect or missing, the computer matching program is unable to determine whether the relevant government

contractor is on the IRS list of delinquent taxpayers. For example, in 1 year, data indicates that DOD sent the IRS over 26,000 invalid TINs that could not be used.

To increase the efficiency of the computer matching program, the IRS has tried to improve the accuracy of the TINs in agency contractor data. The IRS has, for example, set up a computer-based TIN validation system that can electronically verify a TIN number in seconds. This electronic system is available for use by DOD and all other federal agencies. Unfortunately, the IRS has also interpreted certain tax laws as prohibiting DOD from obtaining TIN validations for many types of contracts. In addition, in the case of TIN numbers with clerical errors, the IRS has interpreted current taxpayer confidentiality laws as prohibiting it from supplying a DOD with a corrected number.

The bill we are introducing today would eliminate this bureaucratic redtape and significantly increase the effectiveness of the tax levy program by increasing the accuracy of the TINs used by DOD.

The bill would strengthen TIN accuracy by focusing primarily on the TINs in the Central Contractor Registry, a government-wide database of persons wishing to bid on Federal contracts. This registry is currently administered by DOD, and current Federal regulations require potential bidders to self-register in the system by supplying specified information. As part of the process, registrants are supposed to supply a TIN, but many either do not or supply an incorrect number. The bill would, for the first time, impose a legal requirement on registrants to supply a valid TIN and would also bar contracts from being awarded to contractors who fail to supply a valid TIN.

In addition, the bill would require registrants to authorize DOD to validate their TINs with the IRS and obtain a corrected TIN from the IRS, if needed and possible. This requirement would apply to all registrants in the Central Contractor Registry, no matter what type of contract is involved and whether the contract is with DOD or another Federal agency. It would also allow the IRS to supply corrected TINs where it can promptly and reasonably do so.

If, by chance, a registrant managed to obtain a DOD contract without having supplied a valid TIN, the bill would direct DOD to withhold a portion of their contract payments to satisfy their tax debt as specified under existing law. Although this backup holding requirement has been on the books for years, DOD has not implemented it. The bill would require DOD to start doing so.

Finally, the bill would provide a number of protections. It would protect privacy by prohibiting DOD and other Federal procurement officials from making TIN numbers available to the public. The information would be kept confidential within the procurement community using the Central Contractor Registry. It would explicitly exempt from the TIN requirements any contractor, such as a foreign business, not required by U.S. law to have a taxpayer identification number. The bill would also require DOD to show in the registry database whether a particular TIN has been validated, is awaiting validation, has been found invalid, or is not required, so that procurement officials using the database will know the status of a contractor's TIN. If the IRS were to determine that a particular TIN was invalid, the bill would require DOD to give the relevant contractor an opportunity to correct the number. The bill would also require DOD to warn all registrants in the Central Contractor Registry of the possibility of backup withholding in the event a contractor fails to provide a valid TIN.

DOD and the IRS have indicated that they are willing to undertake many of the changes suggested in the legislation, such as requiring all CCR registrants, as a condition of their registration, to authorize DOD to validate their TINs with the IRS and obtain a corrected TIN from the IRS, if needed and possible. DOD has even drafted possible language to accomplish this objective. The IRS, however, has yet to agree to the specific language or to take steps to improve TIN validation efforts, despite the passage of nearly a year since we introduced this bill in last Congress, and despite the fact that some CCR registrants continue either to omit their TINs or to provide an invalid TIN. Even if the IRS and DOD were to act as promised, the CCR and the privacy protections mentioned earlier would benefit from specific statutory language addressing this issue. That is why we are re-introducing this bill in the 109th Congress.

It is common business sense for the Federal Government to require contractors who want to be paid with Federal taxpayer dollars to allow the United States to determine whether they owe any taxes and, if so, to offset a portion of their contract payments to reduce their tax debts. To accomplish that objective, the Federal Government has to do a better job in identifying federal contractors with unpaid taxes. Our bill, by improving the accuracy of taxpayer identification numbers in the Central Contractor Registry, will strengthen DOD's ability to identify tax delinquent contractors and either deny them new contracts or reduce their tax debts.

I hope all my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation's enactment during this Congress.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Norm Coleman, Susan Collins and Jack Reed, in introducing the Central Contractor Registry Act of 2005. The purpose of this bipartisan bill is to strengthen the ability of the Federal Government to stop tax cheats from obtaining Federal contracts, and for those who have managed to obtain contracts, to use a portion of their contract payments to repay their tax debts.

Now, even more than when we introduced a similar bill in May 2004, it is clear that new legislation is essential to confront the problem of Federal contractor tax debt. Last year the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which Senator Coleman and I sit, raised this issue in a hearing based on a report issued by the Government Accountability Office, GAO. The report showed that over 27,000 contractors at the Department of Defense, DOD, owed $3 billion in unpaid taxes. Approximately 90 percent of these unpaid taxes were payroll taxes, money that should be going to help fund the social security and medicare expenditures that are climbing so rapidly. Too many contractors are continuing to duck payment of these payroll taxes, while at the same time holding out their hands for taxpayer dollars.

Beyond the loss in substantial government revenue, allowing tax cheats to bid on Federal contracts is a disservice to all citizens who meet their tax obligations. It is also a disservice to all of the honest companies that compete for the same government contracts, since companies that do not pay their taxes have lower costs and a competitive advantage over the companies that do.

Current law requires DOD and other government agencies to identify any government contractor with unpaid taxes, to withhold 15 percent or more of their contract payments, and to forward that money to the IRS to be applied to the contractor's tax debt. The official title of the DOD program to carry out this obligation is the Federal Payment Levy Program, sometimes referred to as the DOD tax levy program.

In order to identify tax delinquent contractors before they receive payment, DOD and other agencies participate in a computer matching program administered by the Treasury Department that cross-checks lists of upcoming contractor payments with IRS lists of delinquent taxpayers. If a match occurs, DOD--in the case of defense contractors--and the Treasury Department for all other government contractors is supposed to withhold money from the identified contractor's upcoming contract payments.

The problem is that the computer matching program has so far produced relatively few matches. In 2003, for example, DOD collected only about $680,000 of back taxes through its tax levy program instead of the $100 million that GAO estimates should have been collected. That means DOD collected less than one percent of the back taxes it should have.

One major impediment to the computer matching program has been that it depends upon a Federal agency's providing the correct taxpayer identification number or TIN for each of its contractors, when many contractors have either failed to submit a TIN or supplied an incorrect number. When a TIN is incorrect or missing, the computer matching program is unable to determine whether the relevant government

contractor is on the IRS list of delinquent taxpayers. For example, in 1 year, data indicates that DOD sent the IRS over 26,000 invalid TINs that could not be used.

To increase the efficiency of the computer matching program, the IRS has tried to improve the accuracy of the TINs in agency contractor data. The IRS has, for example, set up a computer-based TIN validation system that can electronically verify a TIN number in seconds. This electronic system is available for use by DOD and all other federal agencies. Unfortunately, the IRS has also interpreted certain tax laws as prohibiting DOD from obtaining TIN validations for many types of contracts. In addition, in the case of TIN numbers with clerical errors, the IRS has interpreted current taxpayer confidentiality laws as prohibiting it from supplying a DOD with a corrected number.

The bill we are introducing today would eliminate this bureaucratic redtape and significantly increase the effectiveness of the tax levy program by increasing the accuracy of the TINs used by DOD.

The bill would strengthen TIN accuracy by focusing primarily on the TINs in the Central Contractor Registry, a government-wide database of persons wishing to bid on Federal contracts. This registry is currently administered by DOD, and current Federal regulations require potential bidders to self-register in the system by supplying specified information. As part of the process, registrants are supposed to supply a TIN, but many either do not or supply an incorrect number. The bill would, for the first time, impose a legal requirement on registrants to supply a valid TIN and would also bar contracts from being awarded to contractors who fail to supply a valid TIN.

In addition, the bill would require registrants to authorize DOD to validate their TINs with the IRS and obtain a corrected TIN from the IRS, if needed and possible. This requirement would apply to all registrants in the Central Contractor Registry, no matter what type of contract is involved and whether the contract is with DOD or another Federal agency. It would also allow the IRS to supply corrected TINs where it can promptly and reasonably do so.

If, by chance, a registrant managed to obtain a DOD contract without having supplied a valid TIN, the bill would direct DOD to withhold a portion of their contract payments to satisfy their tax debt as specified under existing law. Although this backup holding requirement has been on the books for years, DOD has not implemented it. The bill would require DOD to start doing so.

Finally, the bill would provide a number of protections. It would protect privacy by prohibiting DOD and other Federal procurement officials from making TIN numbers available to the public. The information would be kept confidential within the procurement community using the Central Contractor Registry. It would explicitly exempt from the TIN requirements any contractor, such as a foreign business, not required by U.S. law to have a taxpayer identification number. The bill would also require DOD to show in the registry database whether a particular TIN has been validated, is awaiting validation, has been found invalid, or is not required, so that procurement officials using the database will know the status of a contractor's TIN. If the IRS were to determine that a particular TIN was invalid, the bill would require DOD to give the relevant contractor an opportunity to correct the number. The bill would also require DOD to warn all registrants in the Central Contractor Registry of the possibility of backup withholding in the event a contractor fails to provide a valid TIN.

DOD and the IRS have indicated that they are willing to undertake many of the changes suggested in the legislation, such as requiring all CCR registrants, as a condition of their registration, to authorize DOD to validate their TINs with the IRS and obtain a corrected TIN from the IRS, if needed and possible. DOD has even drafted possible language to accomplish this objective. The IRS, however, has yet to agree to the specific language or to take steps to improve TIN validation efforts, despite the passage of nearly a year since we introduced this bill in last Congress, and despite the fact that some CCR registrants continue either to omit their TINs or to provide an invalid TIN. Even if the IRS and DOD were to act as promised, the CCR and the privacy protections mentioned earlier would benefit from specific statutory language addressing this issue. That is why we are re-introducing this bill in the 109th Congress.

It is common business sense for the Federal Government to require contractors who want to be paid with Federal taxpayer dollars to allow the United States to determine whether they owe any taxes and, if so, to offset a portion of their contract payments to reduce their tax debts. To accomplish that objective, the Federal Government has to do a better job in identifying federal contractors with unpaid taxes. Our bill, by improving the accuracy of taxpayer identification numbers in the Central Contractor Registry, will strengthen DOD's ability to identify tax delinquent contractors and either deny them new contracts or reduce their tax debts.

I hope all my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation's enactment during this Congress.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the services of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, VFW, National Home for Children. Located in Eaton Rapids, MI, the VFW Home for Children has spent the past 80 years caring for the children and families of our Nation's veterans. The National Home's uniquely designed facility provides housing, food, health care, education, training, and counseling for the orphaned children and single-parent families in their care. With 70 buildings, 36 individual family homes, a community center, a guest lodge, and a chapel, the National Home is well-equipped to serve VFW-connected children from around the country.

The VFW National Home for Children provides two distinct programs for its residents: the Residential Program and the Single Parent Family Program. Children without a parent or guardian are placed in the Residential Program and live with professional childcare workers until they graduate from high school or are reunited with a family member. Single parent families are placed in a 3-year program that helps the parent or guardian develop the skills necessary to become self- sufficient. Both programs strive to ensure that the children maintain as normal a living arrangement as possible. Therefore, the community is structured as a typical American neighborhood and is fully integrated into the surrounding community. Children attend public school, live in brick homes instead of dormitories, and are encouraged to participate in community-wide events. Most importantly, both of these programs provide the children involved with what they need the most--a normal childhood.

The VFW National Home for Children is the only organization of its kind in the United States. Their innumerable services have touched the lives of thousands of children and families. Whether it is an orphaned child who has lived at the National Home since infancy, or a struggling family that needs help getting on their feet, virtually everyone

leaves the National Home stronger and in a better position than when they arrived.

I know my Senate colleagues join me in offering our congratulations and sincere appreciation to the VFW National Home for Children. We applaud and admire the valuable work of the dedicated donors, staff, and volunteers. We commend the VFW National Home for Children as they continue to improve the lives of these families.

Mr. President, today there will be rallies in 50 cities across the world calling on the Canadian Government to stop the cruel and needless slaughter of seals. Animal protection and environmental groups in the U.S. and throughout the world have condemned Canada's increased seal hunt, which will allow sealers to kill over 300,000 baby seals this year alone. The hunt officially opened on Nov. 15, 2004, but the bulk of the killing will begin toward the end of March, after the babies have been born. They will be clubbed and shot mainly for their fur.

A recent study was conducted by an independent team of veterinarians which found that the seal hunt failed to comply with basic animal welfare standards and that Canadian regulations with regard to humane killing were not being enforced. The study concluded that up to 42 percent of the seals studied were likely skinned while alive and conscious. The United States has long banned imports of seal products because of widespread outrage over the magnitude and cruelty of the hunt.

Our neighbor to the north is fortunate to have vast and diverse wildlife populations--animals that deserve protection, not senseless slaughter. Americans have a long history of defending marine mammals, best evidenced through our Marine Mammal Protection Act. Not surprisingly, recent polling shows close to 80 percent of American voters oppose Canada's seal hunt, and the majority of those surveyed are willing to make consumer choices that will help put a stop to the slaughter.

On February 1, 2005, Senator Collins and I introduced a resolution, S. Res. 33, which urges the Government of Canada to end this senseless, inhumane slaughter. We are pleased that 18 of our colleagues in the Senate have cosponsored this resolution: Senators Lugar, Biden, Cantwell, Jeffords, Dodd, Durbin, Feinstein, Johnson, Lautenberg, Murray, Stabenow, Dorgan, Kennedy, Reed, Schumer, Wyden, Feingold and Boxer.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the dredging of the Menominee River and Channel to 24 and 26 feet, respectively, from their present NOAA-certified depth of 20 feet. Congress originally authorized this dredging in 1960 through Public Law 86-645, which was subsequently deauthorized by the Army in an administrative action due to a lack of funding as required by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662.

The Menominee harbor channel depth of 20 feet dates back to 1931. While harbor depths of 20 feet may have been adequate for ships of that time, a detailed study by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1959 reported the size of cargo ships using Menominee, MI and Marinette, WI ports increased significantly in the mid-1950's. Unfortunately, many of today's modern and more efficient cargo ships cannot safely navigate in harbors with 20-foot clearances. Dredging the river and

channel to 24 and 26 feet would make these ports accessible to the larger ships and would be important to the economic growth in Menominee, Marinette, and the other regions of the country with which they trade. Manufacturing, shipbuilding, and transportation industries account for over a third of the region's employment and rely heavily on access to competitive port facilities.

Dredging of the Menominee River and Channel has been the subject of no less than a dozen studies submitted to Congress over the past century. The 1959 Army Corps of Engineers study recommended dredging to the depths I am proposing today and included support from the then- Governors of Michigan and Wisconsin, and findings of no adverse impact by the Departments Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Federal Power Commission. Assessments by the environmental agencies of Michigan and Wisconsin referenced in the Corps' report indicated the proposed dredging would not harm local fish and wildlife. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the dredging of the Menominee River and Channel to 24 and 26 feet, respectively, from their present NOAA-certified depth of 20 feet. Congress originally authorized this dredging in 1960 through Public Law 86-645, which was subsequently deauthorized by the Army in an administrative action due to a lack of funding as required by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662.

The Menominee harbor channel depth of 20 feet dates back to 1931. While harbor depths of 20 feet may have been adequate for ships of that time, a detailed study by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1959 reported the size of cargo ships using Menominee, MI and Marinette, WI ports increased significantly in the mid-1950's. Unfortunately, many of today's modern and more efficient cargo ships cannot safely navigate in harbors with 20-foot clearances. Dredging the river and

channel to 24 and 26 feet would make these ports accessible to the larger ships and would be important to the economic growth in Menominee, Marinette, and the other regions of the country with which they trade. Manufacturing, shipbuilding, and transportation industries account for over a third of the region's employment and rely heavily on access to competitive port facilities.

Dredging of the Menominee River and Channel has been the subject of no less than a dozen studies submitted to Congress over the past century. The 1959 Army Corps of Engineers study recommended dredging to the depths I am proposing today and included support from the then- Governors of Michigan and Wisconsin, and findings of no adverse impact by the Departments Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Federal Power Commission. Assessments by the environmental agencies of Michigan and Wisconsin referenced in the Corps' report indicated the proposed dredging would not harm local fish and wildlife. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am disappointed to see the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act reintroduced. I supported the successful effort to defeat the gun industry immunity legislation during the 108th Congress and I continue to oppose the legislation.

The misnamed ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'' would rewrite well-accepted principles of liability law, providing the gun industry legal protections not enjoyed by other industries. In addition, this bill would set a dangerous precedent by terminating a wide range of pending and prospective civil cases against members of the gun industry. It would give a single industry broad immunity from civil liability and deprive many victims of gun violence with legitimate cases of their day in court.

While most gun dealers and manufacturers conduct their business responsibly, this gun industry immunity legislation would provide protection from liability even in cases where gross negligence or recklessness lead to someone being injured or killed.

The reintroduction of this bill comes after the Supreme Court recently allowed a civil suit against members of the gun industry to progress in California. Reportedly, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the gun manufacturer being sued distributed guns to dealers who were likely to sell them illegally or through largely unregulated gun shows. Judge Richard Paez of the Ninth Circuit wrote of this case: The social value of manufacturing and distributing guns without taking basic steps to prevent these guns from reaching illegal purchasers and possessors cannot outweigh the public interest in keeping the guns out of the hands of those who in turn use them in crimes.

Last year, in a settlement that marked victory for the 2002 Washington, DC, area sniper shooting victims, Bushmaster Firearms, manufacturer of the XM-15 assault rifle used in the sniper attacks, agreed to pay $550,000 in damages for negligence leading to criminal violence in connection with the shooting spree.

According to reports, Bushmaster continued to sell firearms, including the XM-15 assault rifle used in the sniper shootings, to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, even after several ATF audits documented the dealer's inability to responsibly account for its inventory of weapons. Reports indicate that 238 guns had gone missing from Bull's Eye's inventory and over 50 had been traced to criminal acts since 1997. The victims of the sniper shootings would have lost their ability to sue Bushmaster Firearms and Bull's Eye Shooter Supply had the gun industry immunity bill become law during the 108th Congress.

If it is enacted, this bill would substantially weaken the legal rights of gun violence victims. In addition, other industries will almost certainly line up for similar protections. This is unwise legislation and it should not be adopted.

Mr. President, I cannot vote for this legislation, although I support bankruptcy reform. It is clear that some people abuse the bankruptcy system. However, this bill would make it more difficult for individuals and families who have suffered genuine medical and financial misfortune to get a fresh start. Nearly half of all of those studied in a recent research effort by Harvard Law School said that illness or medical bills drove them to bankruptcy and nine out of ten have faced health problems, job loss, divorce or separation. A letter to the Chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, signed by nearly a hundred bipartisan bankruptcy law professors from law schools across the country, said, ``The bill is deeply flawed, and will harm small business, the elderly, and families with children.''

I have in the past supported reasonable bankruptcy legislation. The legislation which is before the Senate today could have been greatly improved by a number of reasonable Democratic amendments which have been offered over the last several days. However, the Republican majority has largely, on a party-line basis, rejected all amendments out of hand.

I am disappointed that we did not add some reasonable flexibility measures to the ``means test.'' The purpose of the means test is to prevent consumers who can afford to repay some of their debts, from abusing the system by filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy. It makes sense to require those who are able to repay their debts to do so. However, there are some situations that warrant an exception to the means test. For example, the Senate defeated an amendment that would have exempted members of the armed services, veterans, and spouses of service members who die while in military service from application of the ``means test'' provisions of the bill. This would have helped them if their family or their business goes into bankruptcy. That amendment was defeated. Further, an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy that would have exempted from the means test debtors whose severe

medical expenses have caused the financial hardship was also defeated. Senator Corzine also offered an amendment that would have exempted economically distressed caregivers from the means test, but that amendment was also defeated by a largely party line vote. The Republican majority even rejected Senator Nelson's common sense amendment that would have exempted victims of identity theft from the means test.

Further, the Senate defeated amendments that would have protected the homes of our elderly and people forced into bankruptcy after a medical crisis.

I am also disappointed that the Senate defeated several amendments that would have closed loopholes used by wealthy individuals seeking bankruptcy protection.

The Senate had an opportunity to close an increasingly popular loophole where the very wealthy shield millions of dollars before declaring bankruptcy by setting up so-called asset protection trusts. Senator Schumer proposed an amendment to put an end to this abuse of the tax system by limiting the use of these trusts to shield assets only up to $125,000. The amendment was defeated 39 to 56.

The Republicans also rejected an amendment offered by Senator Durbin to curtail the abusive practices of executives at companies like Enron and WorldCom who received millions of dollars in compensation shortly before the companies filed for bankruptcy protection. The chamber also defeated an amendment proposed by Senator Akaka that would have provided credit card users with information to assist them in making more informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. This amendment would have helped consumers understand the consequences of their financial decisions, such as making only minimum payments, so that they can avoid the kind of financial pitfalls that lead to bankruptcy. Sadly, this amendment was also rejected.

The Schumer amendment, which in the past has been strongly supported on a bipartisan basis by the Senate, was stripped from the bill this year. The amendment, which provides that debts arising from violence and threats of violence could not be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings, should have been adopted by the Senate.

We do need bankruptcy reform, and I wish that the Senate had taken this opportunity to pass equitable reform. This bill does not achieve that goal and therefore I cannot support it.

I want to thank my colleagues and I am pleased to join them in supporting this joint request.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein as a cosponsor of her legislation to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. I voted for the original 1994 assault weapons ban and for the amendment to reauthorize the ban in the 108th Congress.

When the 1994 assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004, criminals and terrorists gained potential easy access to 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms produced. In addition to banning 19 specific weapons, the assault weapons ban also prohibited the sale of semiautomatic weapons that incorporated a detachable magazine and two or more specific military features. These features included folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers. Common sense tells us that there is no reason for civilians to have easy access to guns with these military style features.

During the 108th Congress, I joined with the majority of my Senate colleagues in adopting an amendment to reauthorize the assault weapons ban for another 10 years. However, the bill to which it was attached was later derailed. Despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, bipartisan support in the Senate, and the pleas of Americans who have already lost loved ones to assault weapons tragedies, the ban was allowed to expire, as the President and the Republican Congressional leadership were unwilling to act.

Despite the National Rifle Association's assertions that the ban is ineffective, unnecessary, and that guns labeled as assault weapons are rarely used in violent crimes, the need for the assault weapons ban is clear. Just last week, AK-47 assault rifles, like the ones included in the original assault weapons ban, were reportedly used in two separate shootings in Texas and California that left four people dead and four others seriously injured, three of whom were police officers. In Tyler, TX, a gunman armed with an AK-47, wearing a military flak jacket and a bulletproof vest, opened fire outside a courthouse, killing his ex-wife and wounding his son. In the ensuing shootout with police, the gunman was reportedly able to fire as many as 50 rounds at police and innocent bystanders before fleeing in his truck. He was finally shot in another gun battle with police a few miles away. The same day in Los Angeles, a man reportedly armed with an AK-47 walked into his workplace and shot two of his coworkers to death following a dispute. He later turned himself in at a Los Angeles police station.

Unfortunately, assault weapons such as the ones reportedly used in these two shootings as well as many other similar assault weapons are once again being legally produced and sold as a result of the expiration of the assault weapons ban. I again urge my colleagues to act to help prevent tragedies like these by enacting a common sense ban on assault weapons.