Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to clarify the understanding of the managers of this bill with regard to the restriction in section 319F-2(c)(9), as amended by the Gregg-Kennedy amendment, on the use of Bioshield funds from paying the costs for purchase of vaccines under procurement contracts

entered into before the date of enactment. Is it the understanding of the bill's managers that this restriction would not apply to the purchase of additional doses of vaccines otherwise qualifying as security countermeasures if they are acquired under either new contracts or modifications to existing contracts to increase the numbers of doses to be procured for the Strategic National Stockpile?

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the Project Bioshield legislation. This bill will make an important contribution to our Nation's preparedness by authorizing the expenditure of $5.6 billion from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2013 for the procurement of biomedical countermeasures for inclusion in a Strategic National Stockpile. Project Bioshield will bolster the Nation's ability to provide protections and countermeasures against biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear agents that may be used in a terrorist attack. It includes provisions to facilitate research and development of biomedical countermeasures by the National Institutes of Health; to provide for procurement of needed countermeasures through a special reserve fund and to authorize, under limited circumstances, the emergency use of medical products that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

I am pleased that the final version of the bill requires that any bioshield contract be awarded pursuant to full and open competition unless the Secretary determines that the mission of the bioshield program would be seriously impaired by this requirement. This provision ensures that the bioshield program, like other Federal programs, will be subject to governmentwide competition requirements.

I am also pleased that the final version of the bill will not make it more likely that military personnel will be required to take unapproved products without their consent. This subject has been addressed in an appropriate manner in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which is being debated on the Senate floor right now.

This legislation will help to better prepare our Nation and bolster our critical infrastructure to help us deal effectively with terrorist attacks. The mailing of anthrax and ricin tainted letters to Capitol Hill and other locations in 2001 and 2004, respectively, have highlighted our Nation's weaknesses in this area of biodefense. Now Project Bioshield will help give us the tools we need to develop appropriate countermeasures and combat bioterrorism more effectively.

If the Senator will yield for a thank-you from me for his nice comments.

As always, the Senator from Virginia shares the kudos which properly belong to him. I am grateful to the Senator from West Virginia for bringing to the attention of this body the extraordinary chairman we have on the Armed Services Committee.

You have to set aside the Lautenberg amendment temporarily.

Amendment No. 3192

Mr. President, I commend Senator Domenici. He has worked long and hard on this issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. The bottom line is there are a number of instances where the Department of Energy has run into situations where it does not have, nor do other agencies have, the authorities which are necessary to remove or otherwise deal with this nuclear material which is at risk. The Domenici amendment will provide those essential authorities in order to take some very strong antiproliferation steps. It is a very good amendment. We support it on this side of the aisle.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Of course. If I may ask the chairman a question, I have no problem with that.

Is it still our intention to try to order the sequencing of two votes on these amendments?

I am happy to do that.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield time to the Senator from Nevada. I do not know if we have other speakers. How much time remains?

Madam President, how much time is left on both sides?

Madam President, is the Senator from Alabama speaking in opposition or in support of the amendment?

There is a chance Senator Lautenberg may be returning. If so, he would have wanted time. I have no problem agreeing to that.

We ask unanimous consent, if Senator Lautenberg does return after Senator Shelby is finished, that Senator Lautenberg be recognized for 3 minutes immediately prior to the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3151

I think Senator Lautenberg has 2 minutes, and Senator Kyl has 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

the PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The amendment has been cleared.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3206

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3207

That has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3208

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3209

It has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3210

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3211

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3212

On behalf of Senator Byrd, I offer an amendment which would require the Secretary of Defense to increase the size of the acquisition workforce to address the huge management challenges that we face in this area.

I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other side.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3213

I offer an amendment requested by Mr. Reed of Rhode Island as a technical clarification to section 1005 of S. 2400 to clarify the types of recreational programs that can be supported by this section.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3215

On behalf of Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski, I offer an amendment that would authorize a land exchange between the Navy and the State of Maryland at Patuxent River Naval Air Station.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment 3158

Will the chairman yield?

If the Senator from Mississippi will yield, forgive me, I join our chairman in urging all of our colleagues to bring the amendments to the floor, share the language with us, and allow us to move expeditiously on this bill by doing that.

We are going to proceed, as the chairman indicated, tomorrow morning on the floor to consider amendments at the same time that we are holding a hearing with the three generals who have been outlined. We can do both at the same time with the cooperation of all of our Members. We have the cooperation of all of our Members.

I wonder----

I wonder if the Senator would amend that to 12:40?

Mr. President, we have received now a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff representing all of the chiefs urging the Senate to continue their unequivocalness to continue the 2005 round of base realignment and closures as authorized by Congress. They are pleading with us not to leave this issue unresolved because the savings which are essential for the transformation of our military are savings they want to achieve. They are working very hard on the transformation of our military. They clearly intend there be a global posture review, and there will be a global posture review, taking into account the closing of bases overseas.

There is a commission that must be created this year and is required to report to us on the review of the overseas military facility structure. This is referred to in the amendment. As I understand it, they have not yet been appointed, but it is required that the leadership appoint that commission, and it is required, obviously, that the Secretary of Defense and Department of Defense next year, in making their recommendations, take into account the very report this amendment says should be taken into account.

So we have a global posture review which is underway. It will be completed. We have a commission to review overseas military facilities. That is all in place. It is all ongoing. It is all in order. There is a logic to it all in terms of looking at the overseas bases first.

I could not agree more with the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from North Dakota. Of course, you will look at overseas bases first. That is what is going on now. That is the global posture review. That is the commission on the review of the overseas military facility structure which is in the process of being appointed and will report this year.

But to disrupt all that and to leave every base in the United States in limbo for another 2 years is not doing a favor either to our military structure or to the bases around our country. We all have bases. Are we going to leave them nervous? Are we going to leave them in limbo for 2 more years? That is not doing them a favor and it is doing a significant disfavor to our military posture and the requirement that we transform, as the chief said, the combat capability of the Department of Defense.

I hope this amendment would be rejected.

No objection.

No. There has been no agreement on the Domenici amendment.

As I understand, Senator Domenici--and I was distracted-- asked he be allowed to offer the amendment. As I understand it, there has been no agreement to the amendment, the time agreement on the amendment. The manager is asking the Senator from New Mexico would he now withhold that amendment so we can sort this out.

An hour and a half equally divided.

No objection.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment of Senator Lott and Senator Dorgan. The first argument they make is that we ought to look first at overseas bases before we have our commission next year look at the domestic bases. I agree with that. I think it does make more sense to look at the overseas bases before we look at ours, and that is exactly what we provided for by law.

We have created a commission which will look at overseas bases and report back to the Department of Defense and to the Nation by the end of this year. That commission has now met and I believe they had their first meeting, in fact, this month and they have already scheduled a second meeting.

In terms of the argument that we should surely look at these bases all around the world before the commission which will be appointed next year looks at domestic bases, I think the argument is a good one, and we have provided for that argument.

The Global Posture Review, which is a requirement that the Department of Defense is now meeting, which is to see whether our forces are properly deployed around the world in order of addressing where the likely hotspots are, that Global Posture Review is also going to be completed this year. So there is a logic, there is a chronology, which meets the supporters' argument, the proponents of the amendment of Senator Lott, that there is a sequence which should be followed.

We should first look at the overseas facilities before looking at ours is a sequence which we now have placed in law for many years. This, of course, has been in law and is now unfolding, as it was projected to unfold by law.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all of the chiefs have written us a letter. That letter has been printed in the Record. It is dated May 18, but I just quote from it to emphasize the importance of going through with a base realignment and closure round as authorized in the year 2001, and the importance to our uniformed military leadership.

The letter is addressed to Chairman Warner. It says:

We are writing this letter to emphasize our continued and

unequivocal support for conducting a 2005 round of base

realignment and closure (BRAC), as authorized by the

Congress.

The convergence of ongoing strategy and overseas basing

actions, the transformational direction in all the services

and force structure changes together afford us a once-in-a-

generation opportunity to truly transform the Department's

combat capability in an enduring way. A delay of this BRAC

round, or a modification of the legislation that limits the

Department's flexibility to execute it, will seriously

undermine our ability to fundamentally reconfigure our

infrastructure to best support the transformation of our

forces to meet the security challenges we face now and will

continue to face for the foreseeable future.

There is transformation going on. We are shifting to meet new threats--the best that we can foresee them. It has been argued that you can't perfectly foresee future threats. That is true. But that is surely no argument for not attempting to make the assessments in a thorough way, in a conscientious way, and then to structure your forces and to structure your infrastructure in a way that will most readily and most effectively meet those projected threats.

How can we reconfigure our military, which I think everybody recognizes is necessary in a new world of new threats, if we freeze into place the infrastructure that we have in this country? Somehow or other, the argument is made that because there are changes in the world, therefore we should not change, we should not allow our structures here to change. The opposite, it seems to me, is the case. The world has changed and changed dramatically, and the threats are very different. Surely we should not be frozen into our current structures here or around the world in response to a changing threat environment.

So the more we point out, and accurately so, and the more we argue how different the threats are following 9/11, it seems to me the more we should be willing to allow a process to work which first looks at our structures, our infrastructure, our base structure around the world, and then next year, after the foreign structures are looked at and the foreign bases are looked at, then our base-closing commission will look at the domestic bases.

I believe one of the Senators who spoke argued that the vote in 2001 came prior to 9/11 and that everything has changed since then. According to the information I have, our vote took place on September 25, 2001, 2 weeks after 9/11, the vote to sustain the title in the bill which authorized an additional round of base realignments and closures. I believe that vote--maybe my records are wrong here--took place after 9/11 and not before 9/11.

We also had a vote last year as to whether we should not proceed with another round of base closings. That vote last year also surely came after 9/11. We went through the same arguments, essentially, on our vote last year, whether the world has changed as to whether there are really savings that are created by the closing of bases.

On the savings point, I would simply give the best information available to us relative thereto. We have talked about the necessary closing of and realigning of bases in order to meet the new threats. But there is also a significant savings issue here as well. Here quoting from the Department of Defense report of March 2004, which we required, on page 55, this is the conclusion:

The four prior rounds of base realignments and closures

have generated significant savings for the Department of

Defense. Through fiscal year 2001, the end of the four prior

rounds' implementation period, the Department had accumulated

net savings of about $17 billion over BRAC implementation

costs from the closure and realignment actions approved in

those four rounds.

Then the report goes on to say that:

These BRAC-created savings continue, and the Department

realizes recurring savings of almost $7 billion each year.

These savings were realized even after environmental

restoration funding was processed through BRAC accounts.

So the savings here are real. The necessity of closing unnecessary bases in order to meet new threats is real. It seems to me, as difficult as it is for all of us to confront the reality that some of our bases are in excess and do not meet the current threat situation, that we ought to proceed.

The amendment as written would require a new act on the part of Congress in order to restore a round of base closing. This is not a situation where the base closing is automatically going to take place. The commission would be allowed to recommend base closings in a future year. According to this amendment, it would require a subsequent act of Congress in order to restore a round of base closings in order to have a commission which would have the power to make those recommendations, both to the executive branch and to the Congress.

So this is not just simply a matter of delay, even though I think that would be a serious mistake. This is a matter of eliminating the round of base closings which is scheduled unless there is a subsequent enactment by Congress of a bill which would set up a round of base closing in the year 2007.

If we delay it or if we take the action that is proposed--technically more than a delay but actually a repeal in the absence of, subsequently, Congressional legislation--we will be leaving the bases in this country in limbo. It is hard enough. We all have bases in our States. It is difficult enough for our bases to go through this process, and we know that. We have all suffered some pain, some States more than others--my State a lot. But there is still a lot of real concern about the existing bases we do have in our State. But to simply say we are going to leave you in limbo for a few more years and then see whether Congress in 2007 adopts another round it seems to me is the worst of all worlds for everybody.

We have a need to realign bases. We have new threats. We have costs we cannot afford. It seems to me we have a process in place, which is a logical process looking first at the bases overseas, doing that this year through a Global Posture Review and through a report of a commission which specifically has been placed by law in operation to look at foreign bases, and then next year, according to a law which we passed in 2001, the next President, whether it is President Bush or whether it is President Kerry, would then appoint a commission that would look, in an objective way, at all of the bases, having before it the work of the commission which is looking at the foreign bases this year and having before it the Global Posture Review, which is being now adopted by the Department of Defense.

I want to close with another paragraph from this letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Again, this was signed by every one of the Chiefs. It reads, in the second paragraph, as follows:

A comprehensive overseas basing review is nearly complete.

The continued concentration of forces in Cold War locations

highlights the need for a global repositioning to locations

that best support our strategic goals. In order to ensure

that the Department examines its entire infrastructure, the

rationalization of our domestic infrastructure as conducted

by the BRAC process must closely follow the Global Posture

Review.

In other words, we have a Global Posture Review which is being adopted

this year, and for the BRAC process to be delayed or to be rendered uncertain at least until the year 2007 means there will be a disconnect between the Global Posture Review, which looks at our force structure around the world, a disconnect between that and the decision as to which bases to close.

Our chiefs say both efforts are necessary. Both efforts are necessary--the Global Posture Review as well as a BRAC process--for a genuine capabilities-based infrastructure rationalization and for further transformation of our war-fighting capabilities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator McCain.

Mr. President, there has been a number of votes on BRAC. Just to clarify, it was not just that the Congress voted to keep a BRAC process going after 9/11; the Senate itself, on September 25, 2001, voted to table an amendment which struck the BRAC title. That was after 9/11. It was the Senate itself that voted on that.

Secondly, the point about first things first, it seems to me, is right. We ought to consider overseas bases first. That is why we created a commission last year in the 2004 appropriations bill, the MILCON appropriations bill. We appointed the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structures of the United States. That commission is meeting now. That commission is going to make a report this year. First things first, that is exactly what we are doing with that commission--reporting first on overseas structures.

The real question is whether we get to the second thing. This amendment kills BRAC. I think the sponsors have clarified it. This kills BRAC unless there is, as the Senator from Virginia points out, a vote in 2005 to have a BRAC process. That will be the vote that all of the lobbyists will be pointing to. Every one of our States has bases. A lot of those bases are nervous. They have hired people to lobby us. Now the focus will be on a 2005 vote. So the cost to the communities to keep this pot boiling will continue. The communities will be left in limbo because these bases' future will be uncertain.

The vote in 2005 will be certain. The outcome will not be certain, but there will be a vote in 2005. We know that because of the amendment language. So the beneficiaries of this amendment are the lobbyists and representatives of the communities, the communities kept nervous, kept in limbo. Keep the pot boiling; don't resolve this issue. The only argument to do that is first things first.

We did that. We have our overseas basing commission in place, appointed, meeting. That is the logical process. We ought to let it play out.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if I could respond to my good friend from Virginia, we are hoping to clear that amendment. I believe it can be cleared. I hope it can be cleared. But apparently----

Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to congratulate the staff and students of Pioneer High School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the school's designation as a 2004 GRAMMY Signature School. Pioneer is one of 41 high schools nationwide being honored by the GRAMMY Foundation for making an outstanding commitment to music education during the 2003-2004 school year. I am also pleased to note that Pioneer's program was placed in the gold category, making it among the seven best in the Nation.

Established in 1989, the GRAMMY Foundation engages in programs and activities that cultivate the understanding and appreciation of recorded music and its impact on American culture. The GRAMMY Signature School program, with the most enthusiastic support of Dr. Pepper/7 Up, Inc., honors schools that recognize the positive effects that the arts and music have on young people and rewards these schools with a financial grant that assists them in continuing their exemplary music programs into the following school year.

Last fall, the foundation contacted more than 20,000 public high schools to learn more about each school's music program. Competing with large and small institutions situated in rural and urban communities across America, Pioneer High School submitted its application to a panel comprised of top music educators and professionals. Its vocal and instrumental repertoire distinguished Pioneer as a secondary school committed to providing its students with an exceptional music education. As one of the gold category schools, Pioneer will receive a grant of $5,000 that will help the music department preserve and enhance its already remarkable music program.

Providing an excellent music education for students enriches the entire learning experience. It is my honor to thank the staff and administrators at Pioneer who are responsible for supporting a solid foundation of music appreciation. I also wish to thank the young musicians who willingly dedicate their time and energy toward enhancing their own music abilities and urge them to share their love of music with the following generations. I am confident my colleagues will join me in offering our heartfelt congratulations for this outstanding achievement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Ulrich, a military fellow with Senator Dole, be given floor privileges for the duration of the bill.

Mr. President, I join with our chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Warner, in bringing S. 2400, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 to the Senate floor. This bill is the product of 45 hearings, 3 days of markup, and countless hours of hard work by the members and the staff of the Armed Services Committee.

Throughout this process, Senator Warner has led the committee with his usual fairness and graciousness. There was a unanimous vote of our members in support of this bill, which is a tribute to the able leadership of my dear friend and the balanced approach which Senator Warner takes always in matters under consideration by our committee. He chairs this committee in the finest tradition of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I commend him for it. I wish every Senator could see him in action as he chairs our committee.

Senator Warner has balanced the committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities over the last several weeks so there has been an additional challenge that Senator Warner has had to face as we have worked to report out this bill while at the same

time beginning vital oversight over the abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Without delaying the markup schedule, Senator Warner promptly scheduled a series of briefings and hearings on the prison abuse issue, with more to come. That means more work for all of us, for our staff, but it was the right and the necessary thing to do.

Senator Warner has an equal determination, which I join, to have a comprehensive and prompt, hopefully, series of hearings into all aspects of this issue.

The bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee will promote the national defense, improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, and make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For instance, the bill authorizes a 3.5-percent increase across the board for military personnel in terms of their pay, and it authorizes a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duties subject to hostile fire and imminent danger. We authorize a permanent increase in the rate of family separation allowance.

The bill authorizes a new benefit option under TRICARE which makes available for the first time an opportunity for all members of the selected Reserve and their families to participate in TRICARE. The bill authorizes an increase of $400 million over the President's budget request for enhanced health benefits for reservists.

Second, the bill would make key investments that are needed to help address the challenges our military faces today and will continue to face in the future. I am particularly pleased that the bill would add $900 million to the President's budget to fund additional up-armored Humvees and add-on ballistic protection to provide force protection for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill adds $600 million to the President's budget for additional force protection gear and combat clothing for service members. Our bill adds $450 million to the President's budget for advanced research that will help enhance force protection, combat terrorism, and counter the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The bill adds $47 million to the President's budget to field an additional seven weapons of mass destruction civil support teams, which fulfills a requirement established in last year's bill.

Third, our bill contains a number of important provisions designed to improve the efficiency and the transparency of the operation of the Department of Defense. For instance, the bill would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop comprehensive DOD policy and procedures for the prevention of and response to incidents of sexual assault involving military members. The bill requires the Secretary to take specific steps to improve the management and oversight of contractors performing security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions in Iraq and other areas where U.S. forces are engaged in military operations. The bill establishes a commission on the National Guard and Reserve which will study the roles and missions of the Reserve components, and the bill strengthens the framework for oversight for addressing the Department's continuing financial management problems.

Finally, the bill before us appropriately does not include two particularly troublesome legislative proposals. It does not include a provision that would delay or water down the base closure process. The committee continues to support the senior military and civilian leadership of the Department of Defense in concluding that another round of base closures is critical to meeting our future national security needs, and the bill does not include proposals advanced by the administration that would exempt certain military activities from key environmental requirements, including the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Superfund law.

There are, of course, provisions in this bill on which there are disagreements, as we would expect. I would like to mention a few areas in which I have serious concerns. I am disappointed that the bill, like the President's initial budget submission, fails to provide the money that we all know will be needed to support our day-to-day military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the beginning of this year, the administration insisted that because we do not yet know the exact cost of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, that it would be premature to include any cost for those operations in the budget. The exact costs of a military operation, or even the normal operations of the Department of Defense, for that matter, are never known. That is not an adequate reason for not submitting a budget, and it is an inadequate reason for failing to include in that budget costs that we believe can be reasonably estimated and that we believe will be incurred in the next fiscal year.

If Congress does not act to provide substantial funding for ongoing military operations this year, there is a significant risk that the military services will find themselves in serious financial difficulty earlier next year. The Pentagon has some flexibility to move funds to pay for ongoing operations, but shifting funds away from other priorities can only take the military so far. That is why the Senate Budget Committee included $30 billion for ongoing military operations in the Senate budget resolution earlier this year, and that is why the administration finally has acknowledged the problem, a week and a half ago, and agreed to submit a proposal for a $25 billion budget amendment. This money is needed to support our troops in the field, and they deserve more than just an IOU.

I commend our chairman for holding a hearing in this matter. I think it was a very useful hearing. There was almost a consensus in our committee, or close to it, that there should be an amendment which would be offered, hopefully on this bill, which would provide the funds that are necessary for our troops for the operations we know will be taking place next year but to do it in a responsible manner where the Congress carries out its role of being a check and a balance on the executive branch and not just issuing a blank check. The chairman's initiative in holding this hearing and having the witnesses there who were called I believe will lead to the proper resolution of this matter--hopefully in an amendment that everybody can support.

I am happy to.

I thank the chairman. We are indeed doing that.

Another thing the bill does that it should not do, in my judgment, is to provide more than $10 billion for missile defense, including more than a half billion dollars for additional interceptors, without imposing basic ``fly before you buy'' requirements on the program.

In the course of the markup, an amendment was offered that would have required the missile defense program to comply with the same operational testing requirements that are applicable to other acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. It was defeated. Another amendment was offered that would have cut the funding for the production of additional interceptors or to fence that funding, restrict that funding until operational testing and evaluation of these interceptors is completed. That amendment was also defeated, as was the first, on a closely divided vote.

It is unfortunate that the administration is so insistent on deploying a missile defense system as soon as possible that it is unwilling to comply with even the most basic operational test and evaluation requirements. If we want a missile defense that works rather than one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should not shy away from realistic testing requirements. The law and common sense require realistic testing requirements. Right now, they are not going to be followed.

Another problem: The bill contains full funding of $27 million for the robust nuclear earth penetrator and the

advanced nuclear weapons concept initiative, an increase of over $7.5 million authorized for these programs last year. The administration's budget for the outyear reflects a commitment to developing an earth penetrator, which is likely to cost on the order of $1 billion to produce and deploy. The bill also includes $9 million--a 50-percent increase over fiscal year 2004--for the advanced nuclear weapons concepts initiative to look at new options for nuclear weapons.

By pursuing this earth penetrator and the new nuclear weapons concepts, the administration continues to send the wrong message about weapons proliferation. At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development--we oppose North Korea's pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and we are spending over $1 billion to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology--these actions that are proposed by the administration send a terrible message.

We are telling others not to go down the road to more and more nuclear weapons. But instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are recklessly driving down that same road. In short, the United States is following a policy we would not tolerate and do not accept in others.

I hope the Senate will reverse the administration's proposals as leaving us and the world less secure and more likely to face the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the proliferation of those weapons is the greatest threat we face.

Finally, the bill contains two troubling provisions that would erode more than 30 years of congressional policy relative to high-level radioactive waste. These provisions were adopted on closely divided votes. One provision provides that the Department of Energy will have virtually unchecked discretion to reclassify or decree that high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina is not high-level radioactive waste. This ability to reclassify the waste opens the door to the Department of Energy to leave high-level radioactive waste in the ground in South Carolina and could lead to the same result in other States. That is because the second provision I referred to would require the States of Idaho and Washington to acquiesce in the Department of Energy's desire to reclassify high-level radioactive waste as they want to do in South Carolina before Idaho and Washington could continue to receive money to pump liquid high-level radioactive waste out of the tanks that are present in those States.

Taken together, these two provisions begin to undo years of effort to make sure high-level radioactive waste will be disposed of safely to protect the public and the environment. It is disingenuous to pretend that high-level radioactive waste is anything other than high-level radioactive waste. The cavalier treatment of high-level radioactive waste could pose a very real risk environment to the health of our citizens down the line.

As we begin consideration of this bill, the men and women of our Armed Forces--both Active and Reserve--remain deployed in harm's way in many areas of the globe and are being subjected to almost daily arms attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. We join together--every Member of this body--in standing behind our troops and expressing pride in their extraordinary accomplishments on the battlefield. This bill will help provide them with the equipment they need and the compensation and benefits they deserve.

Let me again conclude by thanking Senator Warner for the leadership he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor, and I know we look forward to receiving amendments and considering amendments on this bill as the week progresses.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield while I add my thanks to the Senator from Maine for the contribution she makes to the committee. She highlighted a number of initiatives she has undertaken on the committee. In addition to those very strong efforts on the part of the Senator from Maine, she has been such a major contributor in the strength of the committee over the years that I wanted to acknowledge that along with our chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Texas for her leadership. She has been very patient and has allowed us to be very thorough. As a result, I think the amendment which she sponsors is very valid, and not only will pass overwhelmingly, hopefully for the good it does, but also will make it through conference. I commend her for her tenacity on this issue. I hope it is successful. It fills some gaps which need to be filled.

No objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Christopher Povak of Senator Lieberman's staff during consideration of S. 2400.

Mr. President, this week our Nation's police officers gathered in Washington, DC to commemorate National Police Week. The week long tribute to our Nation's Federal, State, and local police officers honors those who have died in the line of duty and those who continue to serve and protect us at great personal risk everyday.

The first National Police Week was celebrated in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as ``Police Week.'' Every year since, tens of thousands of Federal, State and local police officers have come to Washington to honor those that have made the ultimate sacrifice.

In addition to a number of other events, police officers join for a candle light vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The first memorial service took place on May 15, 1982. On that date, approximately 125 police officers assembled in the Senate park to honor the law enforcement officers who had been killed that year. Over the past 22 years, over 3,000 law enforcement officers from around the country have been so honored.

Today, there are approximately 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving in the United States. Over the past 10 years, a total of 1,658 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty, of which 145 were killed in 2003. Over the course of this week, all 145 of these officers have been honored and tonight their names will be added to National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

One way we can further honor the sacrifices of these brave men and women is to pass sensible gun safety legislation. A number of my colleagues, with my support, have sought to do just that. That is why I cosponsored the Gun Show Background Check Act introduced by Senator Reed. I support that bill because I believe it is an important tool to help to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals. This bill simply applies existing law governing background checks to persons buying guns at gun shows. It is supported by a variety of law enforcement organizations including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs of Police, National Black Police Association, Police Foundation and National Troopers Coalition.

The law enforcement community has also asked Congress to reauthorize the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The 1994 law banned a list of 19 specific weapons, as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics such as pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors. The assault weapons ban also prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons that incorporate at least two of these military features and which accept a detachable magazine. This law is scheduled to expire on September 13, 2004.

I support the efforts of the law enforcement community who are calling for legislation extending the law. In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and, last month, I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting

to extend the assault weapons ban for 10 years.

Law enforcement support for the assault weapons ban is broad. It includes the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of School Resource Officers, the National Fraternal Order of Police, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and the National Black Police Association. I hope the Senate will stand with our Nation's law enforcement community and support these important pieces of gun safety legislation.

I know all of my colleagues join me in remembering those who have served and continue to serve in our Nation's law enforcement community and thanking them for their sacrifices.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SARBANES. This week, beginning May 9th, we celebrate National Police Week, culminating in Peace Officers' Memorial Day on May 15th. It is a time for us to remember the dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line every day to make our communities safer.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy designated May 15th as Peace Officers' Memorial Day, and the week in which May 15th falls as National Police Week. During this week, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the world converge on Washington, DC to participate in activities highlighting the importance of law enforcement to citizens' daily lives.

This past year, 154 police officers were killed in the line of duty. That is 154 fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, daughters, and sons who did not go home to the families waiting for them at the end of the workday. Since the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund started keeping such statistics, 16,500 police officers have been killed in the line of duty. In my home State of Maryland, we have lost a total of 246 police officers. On average, one law enforcement officer is killed somewhere in America every 53 hours. The risk encountered by those law enforcement officers serving in communities throughout this country--men and women who get up every morning to go to work knowing it is entirely possible they will not come home at the end of the day-- is enormous. Such commitment deserves more than one week to appreciate.

We spend a lot of time, especially in this day and age, as we should, worrying about and praying for the nearly 150,000 young men and women serving in our armed services in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, I believe it is important to reflect on the 870,000 men and women serving in law enforcement who protect our homeland day in and day out. These are the police officers who ensure that our children get to school safely, that our roads are safe from the dangers of speeding or drunk drivers, that ensure our neighborhoods are protected from the violence associated with gangs and drugs, and that come to our aid when tragedy strikes.

I want to make mention of a few poignant examples of the risk that those involved in this profession face every day. Maryland State Police Trooper First-Class Anthony Jones was killed last week when a drunk driver struck him while he was fulfilling his duty seeking to help another trooper respond to a car accident. Trooper Jones left behind a wife and two daughters.

Then there is Detective Thomas Newman of the Baltimore City Police Department who was shot to death in 2002 in retaliation for his testifying against a man who had shot another police officer in 2001. Detective Newman was ambushed by three assailants who continued to fire at him even after he fell to the ground.

Also deserving of our thoughts and prayers this week are the families of Prince George's County Sheriffs Deputies Elizabeth Magruder and James Arnaud. The two were shot and killed while serving a court order for an emergency psychiatric evaluation on a man in Prince George's County. Magruder left behind a husband and four-year-old son while Arnaud left behind a wife, son, daughter and grandchildren.

These are just a few examples of the brave men and women who put their lives on the line so that all of us can sleep more soundly at night. The sacrifices they and their families have made are too numerous to count and to deep for words to express. But at least during this National Police Week, we are able to take a moment to appreciate their efforts and the efforts of their colleagues that are still serving. As St. John said, ``No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that our amendment No. 3120 at the desk be modified and called up.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment, as modified, be dispensed with.

Madam President, I am offering this amendment along with our colleague, Senator Coleman. I understand the amendment has been cleared now on both sides of the aisle. I very much appreciate the effort that has been put into this matter by Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. They have been battling abusive tax shelters for years now, and it is a privilege to join them in this fight by providing the IRS with stronger enforcement tools.

Abusive tax shelters are undermining the integrity of our tax system, robbing the Treasury of tens of billions of dollars each year, and shifting the tax burden from high income corporations and individuals onto the backs of the middle class.

The bill before us contains a host of important reforms to combat abusive tax shelters, including codifying and strengthening the definition of when a shelter has ``economic substance.'' But there is an area where the underlying bill falls short and unnecessarily so. That's on the penalties for the people who design and sell the abusive shelters. The bill sets the penalty at 50 percent of the fees earned by these promoters, meaning they get to keep half of their ill-gotten gains.

That is the provision that our amendment addresses, but we significantly toughen this provision in a way which I think this body will totally approve.

The amendment I originally filed proposed raising the penalty on abusive tax shelter promoters and those who aid or abet tax evasion to 150 percent. Today we have reached a compromise, agreeing to set the penalty at 100 percent, which will ensure that those who peddle abusive tax shelters will not get to keep a single penny of their ill-gotten gains.

The issue is whether when you have an abusive tax shelter, one which robs the Treasury of millions of dollars, the people who cook up those tax shelters are going to be penalized in any significant way. Will the accountants or the lawyers or the investment bankers--the people who design these deceptive and sham tax shelters, which are abusive and have no economic purpose, except to avoid taxes--will they be deterred from doing this? And if they do it, will they be penalized, at least to the extent of having their ill-gotten gains being taken back from them? That is the issue.

The current law is like a slap on the wrist. It is like a parking ticket. These abusive tax shelters, which have been designed by the banks and the accounting firms, and which have made them millions of dollars, result in a maximum fine of $1,000 under current law.

What our amendment does is say, if you design and promote an abusive tax shelter which has no economic substance and you are found responsible for doing that, the IRS can get all of your fee that is ill-gotten and wrongfully obtained for cooking up that tax shelter--not $1,000 of the fee, not half of the fee, as was originally proposed in the bill, but the entire fee is going to be recoverable by the IRS.

We can take a quick look at one of these tax shelters. This is called Flagstaff. I am not going to try to explain what that tax shelter you are looking at does. It is obviously inexplicable. It has all of this mumbo jumbo, all of these boxes and arrows that were intended by JP Morgan Chase to create an impression of economic activity when there was none. That is what this bowl of spaghetti is all about: to create a sham impression that there was some economic substance to these transactions when, in fact, there was no economic substance. They were cooked up in order to create the appearance of economic substance and, thereby, obtain a tax deduction for them.

The question is, when that happens, whether we are going to say to these firms that design these tax shelters for Enron, or for whoever: We are not going to let you, the designers, the perpetrators--who are called aiders and abettors in the law, but are really the promoters of the tax shelters--we are not going to let you keep those ill-gotten fees. We are going to recover those for the Treasury of the United States.

That is the only real deterrent we have.

I want to quickly show how some of these firms analyze these fees they get. Again, we are talking about millions of dollars in fees. These are cookie-cutter tax shelters that are designed and sold by the hundreds to people who can use a tax deduction for, usually, their capital gains, but are not engaged in economic activity which would justify the non-payment of tax on these capital gains.

This is what KPMG did when analyzing one of their phony tax shelters: First, they look at the financial exposure to the firm. It is minimal. So what they are saying is: Hey, we can engage in this. We can get away with it because there is no financial exposure.

. . . we conclude that the penalties would be no greater

than $14,000 per $100,000 in KPMG fees. . . . For example,

our average deal would result in KPMG fees of $360,000 with a

maximum penalty exposure of only $31,000.

They do a cost-benefit analysis.

They cook up and design an abusive tax shelter and then say: Now should we really go with this? Shall we peddle this, promote it, look for people who can benefit from it, sell it for hundreds of thousands of dollars and take the risk that we will be caught? Because what happens if we are caught? We are going to be paying a few thousand dollars in penalties and making $100,000. Our maximum exposure, our financial exposure, is minimal.

That is what this amendment changes.

Last November, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which Senator Coleman is the chairman and I am the ranking member, held hearings that provided an inside look at how respected accounting firms, banks, investment advisors, and lawyers have become high-powered engines behind the design and sale of abusive tax shelters.

These hearings were the culmination of a year-long investigation into abusive tax shelters, which first began by pulling the curtain away from one of Enron's sham tax transactions. At the November hearings, we released a report by my subcommittee staff on four case histories of abusive tax shelters developed and marketed by KPMG. At the hearings themselves, we heard from a number of accounting firms, banks, investment firms, and others.

One of the key findings of the subcommittee investigation was that it was not taxpayers visiting their tax advisors that provided the engine for the

creation of abusive tax shelters, but rather hordes of tax advisors cooking up one complex scheme after another, and then peddling them to potential customers. There are legitimate tax shelters and abusive ones. The abusive shelters are marked by one characteristic: there is no real economic or business rationale other than a tax reduction. We found the abusive shelters being packaged up as generic ``tax products'' with boiler-plate legal and tax opinions, followed by elaborate marketing schemes to peddle these products to literally thousands of taxpayers across the country.

It is the insight gained during our close look at these shelters that led me and Senator Coleman to introduce the Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act, S. 2210. While the Levin-Coleman bill addresses a wide range of tax shelter issues, our amendment focuses on one key issue: the woefully inadequate penalties that are now on the books for the tax shelter promoters who concoct and peddle abusive shelters.

Existing tax shelter penalties are a joke. They provide no deterrent at all. The story begins with Enron, and I think the Enron scandal has shown us one reason this amendment is so important. The Flagstaff example I talked about earlier was designed to save Enron more than $60 million in taxes. The whole scam was built around a sham $1 billion loan that was issued to Enron but was repaid in nanoseconds, and then used to claim various tax benefits as well as creating a false impression of profits on the balance sheet. JP Morgan Chase designed and sold this concoction to Enron for more than $5 million. After Enron collapsed and this scam came to light, we learned that JP Morgan had sold the same abusive tax shelter to at least one other company as well.

Under Section 6700 of the tax code prohibiting the promotion of abusive tax shelters, JP Morgan was subject to a whopping $1,000 penalty. Let me repeat: For one tax shelter which was abusive because it was a sham and a deception, JP Morgan Chase's ill-gotten gain from one company, Enron, was $5 million. Its penalty exposure to the IRS under current law was $1,000.

As IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said when he testified at our tax shelter hearings, the current tax shelter promoter penalty is ``chump change.'' To continue quoting Commissioner Everson: ``We need significantly increased penalties to hit the promoters who don't get the message where it counts, in their wallets.''

Our tax shelter investigation found some fascinating documents as well, including one I have shown here today in the KPMG memo that shows a particular tax shelter promoter performing a specific cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether or not to take the risk of peddling an abusive shelter. The third paragraph of this KPMG memo says:

First, the financial exposure to the Firm is minimal. Based

upon our analysis of the applicable penalty sections, we

conclude that the penalties would be no greater than $14,000

per $100,000 in KPMG fees. . . . For example, our average

deal would result in KPMG fees of $360,000 with a maximum

penalty exposure of only $31,000.

The fact that all KPMG could lose if caught was a small part of its fee was a driving consideration in KPMG's decision to take the risk. This memo is proof that weak penalties encourage tax shelters and that tough penalties would deter them. Congress needs to enact meaningful, tough penalties to deter promoters from pocketing any gains from designing and peddling abusive tax shelters. We need to deter folks from making a cost-benefit analysis that encourages the promotion of a tax shelter they know is not likely to withstand scrutiny.

Our amendment would do just that by strengthening penalties for promoting abusive tax shelters.

Our amendment focuses on two key penalties. The first is the penalty for promoting an abusive tax shelter under Tax Code section 6700. The second is the penalty for aiding and abetting tax evasion under Tax Code section 6701. It would increase the penalty for both types of misconduct.

Currently, the penalty under section 6700 of the Tax Code is the lesser of $1,000 or 100 percent of the promoter's gross income derived from the prohibited tax shelter. That means in most cases, the maximum fine is $1,000. That figure is laughable, when many abusive tax shelters are selling for $100,000 or $250,000 apiece. Our investigation uncovered tax shelters that were sold for millions each. The Enron tax avoidance scam sold for more than $5 million. We also saw instances in which the same so-called tax product was sold to more than 100 clients. A $1,000 fine is like a parking ticket for raking in millions illegally.

The bill before us is an improvement over the status quo, but an unnecessarily modest one. It would increase the penalty for promoting an abusive tax shelter to 50 percent of the promoters' gross income from the prohibited tax shelter. Why should anyone who pushes an abusive tax shelter--an illegal tax shelter that robs our Treasury of much needed revenues--get to keep half of his ill-gotten gains? And what deterrent effect is created by a penalty that allows promoters to keep half of their fees if caught, and all of them if they are not? That half-hearted penalty is not tough enough to do the job that needs to be done.

At the very least, a meaningful penalty for those who peddle abusive tax shelters must ensure that the tax shelter promoter does not profit from its wrongdoing. It must require the wrongdoer to disgorge every penny of the income obtained from selling the shelter. Our amendment would do just that.

My original amendment would have gone further. It would have created a maximum penalty equal to 150 percent of the promoter's gross income from the prohibited tax shelter. Under that penalty, the first 100 percent would have forced the disgorgement of the ill-begotten gains, and the remaining 50 percent would have imposed what I consider to be an actual penalty on top of that. But today, our amendment does not go that far. It stops at 100 percent. While that is not as tough as called for in the Levin-Coleman bill, it is a reasonable compromise and will ensure that those who promote abusive tax shelters will lose 100 percent of their ill-gotten gains.

The underlying bill has the same problem in the way it addresses many professional firms the accountants, law firms, banks, and investment advisors that aid and abet the use of abusive tax shelters and enable taxpayers to carry out abusive tax schemes. The underlying bill takes the same half-hearted approach of denying only 50 percent of the gross income obtained by the aider and abettor, and allowing the wrongdoer to keep half of its ill-gotten gains. Just as we do with tax shelter promoters, our amendment would raise the penalty under tax code section 6701 to 100 percent of the aider or abettor's gross income, thereby denying them 100 percent of their ill-gotten gains. In addition, our amendment would make an important change to section 6701 itself by eliminating a provision which limits the penalty to persons who prepare tax returns. Instead, our amendment would apply the penalty to all wrongdoers who knowingly aid and abet the understatement of tax liability, not just tax return preparers.

Finally, while I am pleased that today we have reached agreement to accept a 100 percent penalty, I would like to take this opportunity to observe that penalties that cause wrongdoers to not only disgorge their ill-gotten gains, but also pay a monetary fine on top of that are fair and provide a meaningful deterrent.

There is no reason why those who concoct and peddle these shenanigans should get off any easier than the taxpayers who use them. Just last week the IRS came out with an initiative to allow taxpayers who used a tax shelter known as ``Son of Boss'' to come clean. This tax shelter was marketed beginning in the late 1990s and was one of the tax shelters we looked at during our investigation. Under the terms of the IRS initiative, taxpayers are required to come forward and pay 100 percent of the tax they tried to escape. On top of that, the IRS can impose a penalty that ranges up to an additional 40 percent. That means the taxpayer faces up to a 140 percent penalty.

Son of Boss is a hellaciously complicated tax shelter that was dreamed up and carried out by tax shelter promoters and other professionals. The taxpayers who bought this shelter have to cough up 100 percent plus. It is only fair that the tax shelter promoters who made so many millions of dollars in profit on these schemes should do no less.

It is also important to realize that Congress has frequently set penalties for corporate misconduct and financial crimes that require wrongdoers to disgorge 100 percent of their ill-gotten gains plus pay a penalty on top of that, and courts have upheld those penalties as both constitutional and enforceable. For example, under current law, violation of the federal securities laws results in 100% disgorgement plus a civil fine of up to 100 percent, for a total civil penalty equal to 200 percent. In the special case of insider trading, violations result in 100 percent disgorgement plus a civil fine of up to 300 percent, for a total civil penalty equal to 400 percent. Manipulation of commodity markets results in a civil fine of up to 300 percent. False claims submitted to the Federal Government result in a civil fine of up to 300 percent. Even the tax code has penalties of this magnitude; for example, personally profiting from a charity results in a civil fine of up to 200 percent.

Men and women in our military are putting their lives on the line every day for our nation. To make sure we can provide them with the resources they need, all Americans need to contribute their fair share in taxes. While the bill before us improves the tax shelter penalties over current law, we can and should do much better. We need penalties that truly deter those who make a profit from peddling abusive tax shelters and aiding and abetting tax evasion, not penalties that would allow the promoters to keep half of their ill-gotten gains.

It is long past time to stop in their tracks the shelter abusers and the promoters who push them. This amendment would send the message to promoters that their tax schemes are unfair and unpatriotic. Again, I appreciate the bill managers accepting it into the bill.

I also thank Senator Coleman for being such a strong advocate of this approach, putting in the law a real deterrent to end these abusive tax shelters which have cost the Treasury and the average taxpayers of this country, who have to share the burden, so many tens of billions of dollars. That is now hopefully going to end.

Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for the way they have worked with us to adopt this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. President, this weekend moms from across the country will converge on Washington to join in a march remembering gun violence victims and urging President Bush to support commonsense gun safety legislation. I am proud to support the moms, and I know my colleagues will join me in commending these women for their leadership.

On Mother's Day, moms will gather on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol to bring their ``Halt the Assault'' message to the front door of Congress. These women have come to Washington to urge Members of Congress to support sensible gun safety legislation. Their leadership is desperately needed on this issue, and I applaud all of the moms who will make this journey for their commitment. After the march, the moms will spend Monday visiting our offices and urging us to support commonsense gun safety legislation.

One of the moms attending this Sunday's events is Barb Case, Michigan's Million Mom March President. Mrs. Case has been a member of the Michigan Million Mom March since it first started in 2000. She will be leading as many as 500 Michigan moms to Washington. The Michigan moms will be marching in memory of the 120,000 people who have been killed by a firearm, including more than 13,000 children and teens, since 2000. Mrs. Case, along with other moms in Michigan, have united with State and local leaders to implement community efforts to address the tough issues surrounding gun violence in my home State of Michigan. And, Barb has organized Michigan's moms trip to Washington every year since the first march took place in 2000.

This year's marchers are focused on the renewal and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, holding gun manufacturers accountable for their products, requiring background checks on all gun purchases, reinstating the 5-day Brady waiting period for all gun purchases, and incorporating safety standards into gun design.

Michigan's moms, just like millions of moms from across the country want an America where their kids are safe from gun violence. Again, I commend all of the mothers coming to Washington this weekend for their hard work and commitment to the issue of gun safety and I hope all of my colleagues will remember these efforts when the Senate considers gun safety legislation in the coming months.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Detroit Free Press, which discussed the issue of gun violence and this Sunday's march, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Norm Coleman, Susan Collins and Jack Reed, in introducing the Central Contractor Registry Act of 2004. The purpose of this bipartisan bill is to strengthen the ability of the Federal Government to stop tax cheats from obtaining Federal contracts or use a portion of their contract payments to repay their tax debts.

In February, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which Senator Coleman and I sit, held a hearing on a report by the General Accounting Office which disclosed that over 27,000 contractors at the Department of Defense owe $3 billion in unpaid taxes, mostly from failing to transmit payroll taxes to the IRS. Think about that for a minute--27,000 DOD contractors--more than one in every ten DOD contractors--had outstanding tax debts at the same time they were holding out their hands for taxpayer dollars.

Allowing tax cheats to bid on federal contracts is a disservice to all of the honest taxpayers out there who manage to meet their tax obligations. It is a disservice to all of the military men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day. It is a disservice to all of the honest companies that compete for the same DOD contracts, since companies that do not pay their taxes have lower costs and a competitive advantage over the companies that do.

Under current law, DOD has an obligation to identify any DOD contractor with unpaid taxes, to withhold up to 15 percent 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, also sometimes referred to as the DOD tax levy program.

The first step in the program is for DOD to identify tax delinquent DOD contractors who are scheduled to get a contract payment in the near future. To identify these contractors, DOD participates in a computer matching program administered by the Treasury Department that cross- checks DOD lists of upcoming contractor payments with IRS lists of delinquent taxpayers. If a match occurs, DOD is supposed to withhold money from the identified contractor's upcoming contract payments.

The problem is that the DOD-IRS 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 1 percent of the back taxes it should have.

On major impediment to the computer matching program has been that it depends upon DOD's providing the correct taxpayer identification number or TIN for each of its contractors, when many DOD 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 DOD contractor is on the IRS list of delinquent taxpayers. Data indicates that, in one year, DOD sent the IRS over 26,000 invalid TINs that could not be used.

To increase the efficiency of the computer matching program, DOD and the IRS have tried to improve the accuracy of the TINs in DOD's 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 DOD with a corrected number.

The bill we are introducing today would eliminate this bureaucratic red tape 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 currently 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 require DOD and other federal procurement officials not to make TIN numbers available to the public, so that this information is 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. DOD would also be required to warn all registrants in the Central Contractor Registry of the possibility of backup withholding in the event they fail to provide a valid TIN.

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 rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Norm Coleman, Susan Collins and Jack Reed, in introducing the Central Contractor Registry Act of 2004. The purpose of this bipartisan bill is to strengthen the ability of the Federal Government to stop tax cheats from obtaining Federal contracts or use a portion of their contract payments to repay their tax debts.

In February, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which Senator Coleman and I sit, held a hearing on a report by the General Accounting Office which disclosed that over 27,000 contractors at the Department of Defense owe $3 billion in unpaid taxes, mostly from failing to transmit payroll taxes to the IRS. Think about that for a minute--27,000 DOD contractors--more than one in every ten DOD contractors--had outstanding tax debts at the same time they were holding out their hands for taxpayer dollars.

Allowing tax cheats to bid on federal contracts is a disservice to all of the honest taxpayers out there who manage to meet their tax obligations. It is a disservice to all of the military men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day. It is a disservice to all of the honest companies that compete for the same DOD contracts, since companies that do not pay their taxes have lower costs and a competitive advantage over the companies that do.

Under current law, DOD has an obligation to identify any DOD contractor with unpaid taxes, to withhold up to 15 percent 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, also sometimes referred to as the DOD tax levy program.

The first step in the program is for DOD to identify tax delinquent DOD contractors who are scheduled to get a contract payment in the near future. To identify these contractors, DOD participates in a computer matching program administered by the Treasury Department that cross- checks DOD lists of upcoming contractor payments with IRS lists of delinquent taxpayers. If a match occurs, DOD is supposed to withhold money from the identified contractor's upcoming contract payments.

The problem is that the DOD-IRS 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 1 percent of the back taxes it should have.

On major impediment to the computer matching program has been that it depends upon DOD's providing the correct taxpayer identification number or TIN for each of its contractors, when many DOD 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 DOD contractor is on the IRS list of delinquent taxpayers. Data indicates that, in one year, DOD sent the IRS over 26,000 invalid TINs that could not be used.

To increase the efficiency of the computer matching program, DOD and the IRS have tried to improve the accuracy of the TINs in DOD's 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 DOD with a corrected number.

The bill we are introducing today would eliminate this bureaucratic red tape 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 currently 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 require DOD and other federal procurement officials not to make TIN numbers available to the public, so that this information is 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. DOD would also be required to warn all registrants in the Central Contractor Registry of the possibility of backup withholding in the event they fail to provide a valid TIN.

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.

Madam President, in the midst of the ongoing upsurge of the violence in Iraq, President Bush has offered two options for the United States. The first option is to stay the course; the second option is to cut and run. That is a false choice between staying the course and cutting and running. It is too typical of the black and white approach that this administration has repeatedly and unwisely taken.

For example, saying ``you are either with us or against us'' is a black and white choice--the stark choice the President laid down to allies. Well, it may make you feel good to say that, but it needlessly offends those who are certainly not hostile to the United States but may be unwilling to affirmatively endorse all of our actions.

In addition to the President's stark two options--staying the course or cutting and running--there is a third way, and that is to correct the course we are on. The administration has belatedly begun this process, but there is much to be done, and it is much harder and more difficult because of the administration's stubborn insistence that no mistakes were made and its refusal to learn the lessons that need to be learned from those mistakes.

For instance, after holding the United Nations at arm's length, the administration is now belatedly working with the U.N., asking them to help identify an entity to whom sovereignty could be restored by June 30--an entity which needs to have the confidence and credibility of the Iraqi people. I hope this will be the start of a true partnership at the U.N. in fostering Iraq's political and economic development.

The administration has decided to retain some troops in Iraq that were scheduled to leave, despite the fact that the administration disparaged General Shinseki when he foretold the need for more troops for the stability phase.

The administration decided to modify its policy on de-Baathification and reinstate about 11,000 teachers and

hundreds of professors and is reportedly looking to reinstate others whose skills and support are needed for Iraq's development. I hope this revision is seen for what it is--acknowledgement that we went too far, acknowledgement that we made a mistake. I hope it will also include the removal of Ahmed Chalabi as the head of the de-Baathification program, as well. He is the wrong person for the job for a lot of reasons.

While not reversing the mistaken decision to disband the Iraqi Army, the administration's decision to bring back some military officers who were not high Baathists to help guide the new Iraqi Army and other security forces is a practical first step--very late. We only have a few thousand in the Iraqi Army who are now trained but long overdue.

One other mistake was perhaps the biggest mistake of all, in my judgment. Our uniformed military leadership was largely excluded from the planning for the potentially violent aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. The civilians in the Pentagon who were put in charge projected rose-colored scenarios in their planning for the aftermath: Our troops would be greeted with embraces and flowers. It would be a cakewalk.

Had our uniformed military leadership been more deeply involved in that planning, it would have been very different, as our military plans for worst case scenarios. The worst case scenario is what turned out to be the case. But uniformed military were all but left out of the planning for the post-Saddam period. General Tommy Franks, the now retired commander of Central Command who planned the other phases of the operation, confirmed that to me and to Senator Warner a few weeks ago.

On the matter of planning, I realize the administration is committed to the June 30 date for the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty. But I hope that commitment will not prevent it from planning for other options in the event Mr. Brahimi is not successful in identifying a credible entity to whom sovereignty can be restored by that date.

If we have a chance of succeeding and bringing stability and democracy to Iraq, it will mean learning from our mistakes, not denying them and not ignoring them.

I yield the floor.